[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
HEARING TO REVIEW THE PROPOSALS OF THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE FOR THE 2007 FARM BILL WITH RESPECT TO SPECIALTY CROPS AND
ORGANIC
AGRICULTURE
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON HORTICULTURE AND ORGANIC AGRICULTURE
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 28, 2007
__________
Serial No. 110-2
Printed for the use of the Committee on Agriculture
agriculture.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
48-113 WASHINGTON : 2009
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
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
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
COLLIN C. PETERSON, Minnesota, Chairman
TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia
Vice Chairman Ranking Minority Member
MIKE McINTYRE, North Carolina TERRY EVERETT, Alabama
BOB ETHERIDGE, North Carolina FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma
LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa JERRY MORAN, Kansas
JOE BACA, California ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina
DENNIS A. CARDOZA, California TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois
DAVID SCOTT, Georgia SAM GRAVES, Missouri
JIM MARSHALL, Georgia JO BONNER, Alabama
STEPHANIE HERSETH, South Dakota MIKE ROGERS, Alabama
HENRY CUELLAR, Texas STEVE KING, Iowa
JIM COSTA, California MARILYN N. MUSGRAVE, Colorado
JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas
BRAD ELLSWORTH, Indiana CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, Jr.,
NANCY E. BOYDA, Kansas Louisiana
ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio JOHN R. ``RANDY'' KUHL, Jr., New
TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota York
KIRSTEN E. GILLIBRAND, New York VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina
STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas
EARL POMEROY, North Dakota JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska
LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio
JOHN BARROW, Georgia ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska
NICK LAMPSON, Texas KEVIN McCARTHY, California
JOE DONNELLY, Indiana TIM WALBERG, Michigan
TIM MAHONEY, Florida
Professional Staff
Robert L. Larew, Chief of Staff
Andrew W. Baker, Chief Counsel
William E. O'Conner, Jr., Minority Staff Director
.........................................................
__________
Subcommittee on Horticulture and Organic Agriculture
DENNIS A. CARDOZA, California, Chairman
BOB ETHERIDGE, North Carolina RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas
LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee Ranking Minority Member
TIM MAHONEY, Florida JOHN R. ``RANDY'' KUHL, Jr., New
JOHN BARROW, Georgia York
KIRSTEN E. GILLIBRAND, New York VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina
KEVIN McCARTHY, California
K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas
Keith Jones, Subcommittee Staff Director
.........................................................
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Cardoza, Hon. Dennis A., a Representative in Congress from
California, opening statement.................................. 1
Prepared statement........................................... 2
Goodlatte, Hon. Bob, a Representative in Congress from Virginia,
opening statement.............................................. 4
Neugebauer, Hon. Randy, a Representative in Congress from Texas,
opening statement.............................................. 3
Peterson, Hon. Collin C., a Representative in Congress from
Minnesota, prepared statement.................................. 5
Witnesses
Conner, Hon. Chuck, Deputy Secretary, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Washington, D.C................................... 5
Prepared statement........................................... 8
Submitted questions.......................................... 35
THE 2007 FARM BILL WITH RESPECT TO
SPECIALITY CROPS AND ORGANIC
AGRICULTURE
----------
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 2007
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Horticulture and Organic
Agriculture,
Committee on Agriculture,
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittee met at 10:00 a.m. in Room 1302 of the
Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Dennis A. Cardoza
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Members present: Representatives Cardoza, Etheridge, Davis,
Mahoney, Gillibrand, Neugebauer, Kuhl, McCarthy, and Goodlatte.
Staff present: Christy Birdsong, Adam Durand, Keith Jones,
John Riley, Sharon Rusnak, April Slayton, Debbie Smith, John
Goldberg, and Pam Miller.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DENNIS A. CARDOZA, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM CALIFORNIA
The Chairman. We will call this hearing to order. This
hearing of the Subcommittee on Horticulture and Organic
Agriculture to review proposals of the U.S. Department of
Agriculture with respect to specialty crops and organic
agriculture will now come to order. We would like to welcome
our guest today, Deputy Secretary Conner. I would like to
welcome the Members to our first Subcommittee meeting.
Let me start by saying that overall I think the
Department's recommendations for the 2007 Farm Bill are very
thoughtful, coherent, and innovative. You have sent a crystal
clear message that the Department, under the leadership of
Secretary Johanns, wants to be a partner with Congress in this
process, and I commend your eagerness.
This farm bill will not be an easy one. It is a classic
case of ``be careful for what you wish for''. Continued high
farm prices have created a beneficial market scenario for rural
America on one hand, but on the other hand will now create a
far lower baseline than anticipated for the farm bill that we
are tasked with writing. So we have a tough task.
In addition, there are a number of legitimate crops; many
covered under this Subcommittee, who have waited far too long
to become part of the Federal farm program. Specialty crops in
particular comprise over 50 percent of the farm gate value in
this country but they receive far less than their fair share in
Federal support. Organic farmers comprise one of the fastest
growing sectors of American agriculture but lag behind
traditional crops in representation at the Federal level.
However, let us be clear, these growers are not interested
in traditional subsidy programs afforded to the program
commodities. In fact, they are dead set against subsidies as
you know.
So we are their advocate in Congress. We must be creative
and think outside the box. We must look for resourceful and
imaginative ways to weave non-traditional commodities into
existing programs and create new ones that suit the unique
needs of these industries. Unfortunately, being creative and
thinking outside the box has historically not been an easy task
for Congress. But the Department has made what I believe is a
good-faith first step in this process. I applaud many of your
recommendations including the proposals for the research title,
steps for breaking down trade barriers, and the Department's
commitment to controlling invasive pests.
I urge caution on some other proposals such as the
elimination of the planting prohibition and the lack of
meaningful programs to improve competitiveness, such as the
popular Block Grant Program.
I called this hearing in order to give the Subcommittee
Members additional time to question the Department on various
proposals for specialty crops and organics. There are many
folks on the Committee who are not only new the House Committee
on Agriculture, but they are new to Congress in general. I
intend to give every Member as many rounds of questioning as
Deputy Secretary Conner's schedule allows today. This hearing
is meant to be informative, thoughtful, and cordial. Committee
Members can utilize this time to ask the Department their
thoughts on how certain programs may or may not be implemented
in the future.
In turn, the Department can hear from us what
recommendations in their proposal are welcome for inclusion in
the 2007 Farm Bill and which ones might need just a little bit
more work.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Cardoza follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Dennis A. Cardoza, a Representative in
Congress from California
Deputy Secretary Conner, thank you for joining us today. Let me
start by saying that, overall, I think the Department's recommendations
for the 2007 Farm Bill are thoughtful, coherent and innovative.
You have sent a crystal clear message that the Department, under
the leadership of Secretary Johanns, wants to be a partner with
Congress in this process and I, commend your eagerness.
This farm bill will not be an easy one. It is a classic case of
``be careful what you wish for''. Continued high farm prices have
created a beneficial market scenario for rural America on the one hand,
but on the other hand will now create a far lower baseline than
anticipated for the farm bill we are tasked with writing.
In addition, there are a number of legitimate crops, many covered
under this Subcommittee, who have waited far too long to become part of
Federal farm programs. Specialty crops in particular, comprise over 50%
of the farm gate value in this country but receive far less than their
fair share in Federal support. Organic farmers comprise one of the
fastest growing sectors of American agriculture, but lag behind
traditional crops in representation at the Federal level. However, let
us be clear, these growers are not interested in traditional subsidy
programs afforded to the program commodities. In fact, they are dead
set against subsidies.
So as their advocates in Congress, we must be creative, and think
outside the box. We must look for resourceful and imaginative ways to
weave non-traditional commodities into existing programs and create new
ones that suit the unique needs of these industries.
The Department has made, what I believe is, a good faith first step
in this process. I applaud many of their recommendations including the
proposals for the research title, steps for breaking down trade
barriers, and the Department's commitment to controlling invasive
pests. I urge caution on some of the other proposals such as the
elimination of the plating prohibition and the lack of meaningful
programs to improve competitiveness--such as the popular block grant
program.
I called this hearing in order to give the Subcommittee Members
additional time to question the Department on the various proposals for
specialty crops and organics. There are many folks on the Committee who
are not only new to the House Committee on Agriculture, but they are
new to Congress in general. I intend to give every Member as many
rounds of questioning as Deputy Secretary Conner's schedule allows.
This hearing is meant to be informative, thoughtful and cordial. As
Committee Members we can utilize this time to learn from the Department
their thoughts on how certain programs may or may not be implemented.
In turn the Department can hear from us what recommendations in their
proposal are welcomed for inclusion into the 2007 Farm Bill and which
ones might need a little work.
The Chairman. With that I would like to turn this over to
Ranking Member Neugebauer for his comments and opening
statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RANDY NEUGEBAUER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM TEXAS
Mr. Neugebauer. I thank Chairman Cardoza for calling our
first hearing in the newly-organized Horticulture and Organic
Agriculture Subcommittee. The addition of this Subcommittee
reflects the interest many in agriculture have in enhancing
portions of the farm bill that pertain to fruit and vegetable
crops. Members of this Subcommittee represent a wide range of
horticultural crop producers across the country who are asking
for additional assistance in breaking through export barriers,
increasing their markets, and improving research.
I appreciate Deputy Secretary Conner coming today to
discuss the Department's proposals for specialty crops in the
2007 Farm Bill. USDA has proposed increased funding for
technical assistance for specialty crop programs; the Market
Access Program, Specialty Crop Insurance Initiative, and for
the purchase of fruits and vegetables for the school lunch
programs and other nutrition programs. These proposals fall
across a range of USDA agencies and are similar to many
proposals put forth by the specialty crop industry in recent
years. The 2002 Farm Bill added new programs and funding for
specialty crops. The 2004 Specialty Crop Competitive Act
authorized an additional $59 million in discretionary spending
for new Block Grants to states for specialty crop promotion and
the TASC Program for efforts against pests and diseases. Fruits
and vegetables at 30 percent of U.S. crop cash receipts are a
large and important segment of the U.S. agricultural market.
I think there is a consensus that there is more we can do
and should do through the farm bill to support specialty crop
producers, but we also face the reality of working with limited
resources. This Subcommittee will need to evaluate the
effectiveness of current programs for specialty crops and
determine what the most pressing needs are. We will also need
input from producers to prioritize how we use any new resources
available so that funds are going where they have the most
benefit for the specialty crop sector.
Today's hearing is the first step in our Subcommittee's
process. I hope to hear from USDA more about the Department's
proposal, and why they believe these proposals would be best
uses of our additional resources available in the farm bill for
fruit and vegetable producers.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Neugebauer. I appreciate your
statement. I would also like to offer and welcome the Ranking
Member, and former Chairman of the full Committee on
Agriculture and a good friend of mine. We traveled together to
a lot of farm bill field hearings around the country. Mr.
Goodlatte, I recognize you to make an opening statement if you
would like.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BOB GOODLATTE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM VIRGINIA
Mr. Goodlatte. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I very much
appreciate your chairmanship of this newly-formed Subcommittee
and of your holding this hearing.
You are absolutely right. This is an area of American
agriculture that has been given too little attention in
previous farm bills, and so I am pleased that effort is being
made to give more attention to it in this farm bill. I am
especially pleased that the Department, in some of the
proposals that they have put forward, have definitely raised
the ante, if you will, on specialty crops.
I am pleased with the Department's proposal calling for
increased conservation spending, including the creation of a
new conservation enhanced payment option. I think the proposal
is very interesting. However, I am concerned that specialty
crop growers may not have the option of participating in the
program and I would like to hear the thoughts of the Department
from Deputy Secretary Conner and others on that issue and
whether that is something that we could expand into this area
that would be very valuable to apple growers in my part of the
world and to specialty crop producers in other parts of the
country.
I am also very interested in hearing the Department's
thoughts on what we heard last year during the farm bill field
hearings that were referenced by the Chairman. We have traveled
all across the country, as I know Secretary Johanns and the
Deputy Secretary did as well. We heard a great deal of concern
from producers about the increase in pest and disease pressures
facing specialty crop growers, and I notice that thus far the
Department's proposal does not specifically address how we
might be able to assist producers in this area. I would be
interested in the Department's thoughts on that subject as
well.
And then finally, the Department makes, and I think this is
very noteworthy, a significant investment of $2.75 billion over
10 years in purchasing more fruits and vegetables with Section
32 funds. This funding is a significant increase, and I guess
one of the questions I have is this in addition to the fruit
and vegetable purchases already being made or does it simply
build on what is already being done? And does this encompass a
plan to buy more fresh versus processed fruits and vegetables?
Mr. Chairman, I will be here for the oral testimony of Mr.
Conner but I am not going to be able to stay for questioning
due to a scheduling conflict. So if you are unable to address
all those points during the hearing proceedings we will
certainly follow up with questions to you and others at the
Department about that. Overall, we are very interested in the
Department's proposals and very pleased that the Chairman is
holding this hearing today.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Goodlatte. We will certainly
make sure that you and your staff get this information and
every Member will be allowed to ask questions after the hearing
and get the answers back in writing from the Department as
well.
We will now go to witness testimony, but first I would like
to mention to all Members of the Committee that they may submit
an opening statement for the record if they so desire. Thank
you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Peterson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Collin C. Peterson, a Representative in
Congress from Minnesota
Thank you, Chairman Cardoza for recognizing me to speak and for
holding this hearing today. I also want to thank USDA Deputy Secretary
Chuck Conner for testifying here today. The Subcommittee on
Horticulture and Organic Agriculture has an important role to play as
we move forward and write a new farm bill this year.
In today's agriculture economy, the role of specialty crops,
including fruits, vegetables, tree nuts and nursery crops is
significant. Last year, specialty crop production accounted for $53.3
billion, or 44%, of total U.S. crop receipts. There have been many
proposals that would expand farm bill programs for these industries,
and the Committee will consider all of those ideas. I am looking
forward to hearing more about the USDA's proposals on these issues
today.
Another growing area of agriculture since we wrote the last farm
bill has been organic agriculture. According to USDA data, in the past
ten years, organic farming has been one of the fastest growing segments
of U.S. agriculture. Current sales for organic products are $15 billion
annually and are growing by 15-20 percent every year. The increasing
consumer demand for organic food products represents a growing
opportunity for agriculture. For example, many beginning farmers are
expressing interest in organic farming practices, and this may be one
way to attract younger people to farming.
The Agriculture Committee has an important responsibility to
balance the many needs of agriculture producers and consumers in the
next farm bill. Faced with the challenges of a tight budget and
expanding priorities for the farm bill, we have our work cut out for us
to create a bill that is fair and addresses the traditional and new
areas of growth in agriculture.
I look forward to hearing more about the Administration's proposals
related to specialty crops and organic agriculture today. Thank you,
Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. I would now like to formally introduce the
Honorable Chuck Conner, Deputy Secretary to the United States
Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. Mr. Deputy
Secretary, welcome. We look forward to your testimony, and
please feel free to start now.
STATEMENT OF HON. CHUCK CONNER, DEPUTY SECRETARY, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, WASHINGTON, D.C.
Mr. Conner. Thank you very much, Chairman Cardoza. It is
really an honor for me to be a part of this opening hearing of
this new Subcommittee. I know the future is going to bring
great things for this Subcommittee and I am really pleased to
be part of this opening session.
I appreciate the opportunity to discuss USDA's efforts to
assist and promote specialty crops and organic agriculture in
the Department of Agriculture's farm bill proposals. I have a
full statement Mr. Chairman that I would ask to be submitted
for the record, and I will attempt to summarize that statement
for you.
As many of you know, we began preparations on the 2007 Farm
Bill over 18 months ago. We conducted 52 farm bill listening
sessions across the country and received more than 4,000
comments. These comments were truly enlightening and were
really the cornerstone of our proposal that we put forth. We
listened closely to our producers and to our stakeholders
across the country and ended up taking a very reform-minded,
physically-responsible approach to making farm policy more
equitable, predictable, and protected from future challenge.
During these sessions we heard comments from producers who
said that they wanted to see specialty crops as part of the
2007 Farm Bill. Speaker after speaker came up to the
microphone, truly as you have noted, Mr. Chairman, not asking
for cash subsidies, but instead asking for more support in the
areas of research, trade, and nutrition.
The sales of fruits, vegetables, tree nuts, and other
specialty crops do account for approximately half of the U.S.
cash receipts from farm crops. Specialty crop producers have
continuously been underrepresented in past farm bills, and
Secretary Johanns and I believe more can, should, and must be
done for this sector of U.S. agriculture. Reauthorization of
the 2007 Farm Bill provides a real opportunity to create
greater equity in our farm policy. Through our farm bill
proposals we have provided an unprecedented expansion of
support for specialty crop growers through an array of changes
that will enhance their ability to compete in the marketplace
in the future.
In the conservation title we do propose increased funding
of $7.8 billion over 10 years for several conservation programs
that assist all producers, including specialty crop producers
in managing their natural resources. This increased funding
will provide more opportunity for specialty crop producers to
be protected from urban encroachment, while providing more
resources geared towards pest management, air quality, water
conservation issues, and they are certainly a priority that we
heard around the country.
In the trade title we recommend increased mandatory funding
for the technical assistance for specialty crops program, as
well as establishing a new SPS grant program to further focus
resources on addressing sanitary and phytosanitary issues.
International trade and specialty crops has expanded much more
rapidly than trade in other agricultural commodities, and SPS
issues are certainly becoming the trade barrier of choice
around the globe.
Secretary Johanns and I believe it is critical that we
dedicate resource to address these issues in a more expedited
manner. The Department proposed to increase again mandatory
funding of $250 million for the popular Market Access Program,
with the increased funding, of course, being focused on the
non-program commodities. MAP funding has proven to be effective
in expanding markets for U.S. agricultural products.
Our nutrition proposals are obviously something we are
quite pleased with. We have proposed that, again, new mandatory
funding be provided for the purchase of additional fruits and
vegetables for the use in the National School Lunch and
Breakfast Programs. This $500 million represents a net increase
in the total purchase of fruits and vegetables for school meals
over levels already available under any other authorities. We
are also proposing an additional 2.75 billion in funds
available under Section 32, and it will be utilized to increase
purchases of fruits and vegetables for our Food Assistance
Programs.
The 2005, Dietary Guidelines, Mr. Chairman, for Americans,
which are developed and published jointly by USDA and the
Department of Health and Human Services, recommend increased
fruits and vegetable consumption. These proposals put our
guidelines into full practice and full action.
The Department recommends the priority consideration be
given to project applications involving specialty crops under
the Rural Development Value-Added grants program, as well as a
new temporary program to provide $100 million in direct support
to producers of cellulosic ethanol. Eligibility for this
program would be restricted to specialty crop waste and other
cellulosic biomass feed stocks.
In the research title, Mr. Chairman, we propose that $1
billion of mandatory money be invested to establish the
Specialty Crop Research Initiative that would provide science-
based tools for the specialty crop industry. We believe this is
particularly important to address issues such as food safety,
pest and disease management, and other issues that have plagued
our sector over the last several years.
Finally, let me touch upon our proposal to remove the
planting restrictions on traditional crop base acres. We know
this has created some controversy. We believe strongly that
eliminating planting restrictions does insure that we comply
with all of our WTO trade commitments and positions us for the
future to keep our exports, including exports of specialty
crops, flowing without WTO challenge.
We also heard comments from producers and consumers
regarding organic agriculture. U.S. sales of organic food and
beverages has grown rapidly; a billion dollars in 1990, to an
estimated almost $15 billion in 2005. With the increased
consumer demand for organic products, more farmers are
interested in transitioning from traditional farming to organic
farming. However, the requirements to be certified organic are
admittedly lengthy and can be quite costly, especially for
smaller producers. The Department's farm bill proposals also
recognize the challenges faced by organic producers and
identify several initiatives to assist. We propose to expand
and increase the Cost-Share Certification Reimbursement program
to all states and to all producers and processors. This program
has been very helpful to producers in transitioning to organic
agriculture and organic farming, and expanding this program we
believe will help the organic sector continue to grow at its
current pace. We recommend that $1 million be available as well
until expended to fund the collection and publication of
organic production and market data. Again, an area where we
would recognize we have problems within our existing plans. We
also propose that an additional $10 million be added to fund
specifically organic product research.
Mr. Chairman, again, we do thank you for this opportunity
to appear before this Subcommittee on a very important day to
you. To summarize, the Administration does believe that a good
farm bill must address the needs of all of American
agriculture. We look forward to working with the Subcommittee
to see this goal truly become a reality. I will be happy to
answer all the questions the Subcommittee may have this
morning, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Conner follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Chuck Conner, Deputy Secretary, U.S.
Department Of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.
Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Subcommittee, good morning. Thank
you for the opportunity to discuss USDA's efforts to assist and promote
specialty crops and organic agriculture. My testimony will provide an
overview of both of these critical components of U.S. agriculture, as
well as discuss the Department's farm bill proposals in these two
areas.
Specialty Crops
The Congress has defined specialty crops, in the Specialty Crops
Competitiveness Act of 2004, as fruits and vegetables, tree nuts, dried
fruits, and nursery crops, including horticulture. The U.S. specialty
crop sector is comprised of producers, handlers, processors, and
retailers of fruit, vegetables, tree nuts, and nursery crops. Sales of
fruit, vegetables, and tree nuts account for nearly \1/3\ of U.S. crop
cash receipts and \1/5\ of U.S. agricultural exports. When
floriculture, greenhouse, and nursery crops are included. The specialty
crops account for approximately half of all U.S. cash receipts of farm
crops. The specialty crops industry encompasses 250 types of fruit,
vegetables, tree nuts, flowers, ornamental nursery products, and turf
grass crops that are produced throughout the United States. The
industry can be characterized as high risk, high cost farming with high
labor and input costs. One half of specialty crops are produced on
irrigated acreage.
The Department currently administers a number programs that benefit
specialty crop producers. In the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS),
for example, a robust program of price and shipment reporting provides
several hundred daily reports from shipping areas and terminal markets
located throughout the country. All data are Internet-accessible
through a web portal that allows pre-selection reports and downloads of
data in multiple formats for analysis. AMS also offers national quality
grading and production process verification services at shipping and
receiving points on a cost recovery basis. These services are conducted
using both Federal employees and federally-licensed state employees.
Growers, shippers, and receivers of fruit and vegetables benefit from
the enforcement of fair trade practices under the Perishable
Agricultural Commodities Act program administered by AMS. Specialty
crop growers also have available an array of marketing tools under
marketing orders that are created by industry initiative which if
approved through referendum are enforceable on growers through
regulation. The Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) has a number of
programs that benefit specialty crop producers. The Market Access
Program (MAP) provides funding for expansion of markets for U.S.
agricultural products. In addition, the Technical Assistance for
Specialty Crops (TASC) grant program assists U.S. food and agricultural
organizations by funding projects that address sanitary, phytosanitary,
and technical barriers that prohibit or threaten the export of U.S.
specialty crops.
Although existing programs do assist specialty crop growers,
specialty crop producers who do not grow program crops are not eligible
for support under USDA's farm commodity price and income support
programs. We believe more can and should be done for this sector of
U.S. agriculture that accounts for about half of all U.S. farm crop
cash receipts. Our farm bill proposal addresses specialty crops in the
areas of conservation trade, nutrition, rural development, energy, and
research.
USDA Farm Bill Proposals for Specialty Crops
The Department's farm bill proposal would create greater equity in
farm policy by increasing support for specialty crop growers through an
array of changes that will enhance their ability to compete in the
marketplace.
Specialty crop producers have traditionally been under-represented
in farm bill policy. Five program crops receive 93 percent of direct
farm bill cash subsidies, yet the value of U.S. specialty crops is
equivalent to the combined value of these five crops. Sixty percent of
all farmers do not raise program crops and therefore do not receive
direct subsidies. At USDA's Farm Bill Forums held across the country,
specialty crop producers did not ask for direct subsidies similar to
the program crops, instead requesting additional support to address
sanitary and phytosanitary issues, market promotion, and targeted
research. For example, Chris, in Washington State, said ``Potato
growers do not want traditional programs with direct payments but need
assistance in other program areas.'' Mike, in Rhode Island, said ``We
need equitable distribution of Federal funds to the areas and to an
array of producers that do not grow program crops.'' Charles, in
Georgia, reflecting the comments shared by many other producers, said
``Mr. Secretary, your assistance is Paramount in assuring the U.S.
specialty crop industry remains competitive, through proper support of
research, nutrition, promotion and conservation efforts.''
The Administration is recommending a broad package of proposed
changes to several farm bill titles many of which will better assist
specialty crop producers. Major components of our package that are
either targeted directly toward, or include, the specialty crop sector
are listed below.
Conservation Title
We propose increased funding of $7.8 billion over the next 10 years
for several conservation programs that assist all producers, including
specialty crop producers in managing their natural resources. These
include significant increases to the conservation Security Program, the
Environmental Quality Incentives Program, and the new Private Lands
Protection Program. This increased funding will provide more
opportunity for the specialty crop producer to be protected from urban
encroachment, while providing more resources geared toward pest
management, air quality, and water conservation issues that are a
priority for the specialty crop sector.
Trade Title
We propose the phase-in of $68 million in enhanced mandatory
funding for the Technical Assistance for Specialty Crops (TASC)
program, including $4 million in Fiscal Year (FY) 2008, $6 million in
FY 2009. $8 million in FY 2010, and $10 million thereafter through FY
2015. In addition, the maximum allowable annual project award would be
increased from $250,000 to $500,000 and more flexibility would be
allowed to grant TASC project timeline extensions.
We propose that mandatory funding for the Market Access Program
(MAP) be expanded by $250 million over 10 years with the increased
funding focused on non-program commodities. MAP funding has proven to
be effective in expanding markets for U.S. agricultural products.
We propose increased support for a number of initiatives that will
help address sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) issues and other trade
restrictions that affect specialty crop and other producers:
1. Establish a new grant program investing $20 million over ten
years to focus additional resources on international sanitary
and phytosanitary issues. With an increasing number of non-
tariff trade barriers in both developed and developing
countries, the SPS issues grant program would be designed to
fund projects that address sanitary, phytosanitary, and
technical barriers that prohibit or threaten the export of all
U.S. food and agricultural products, including specialty crops.
2. Authorize and provide mandatory funding of $15 million over tell
years to increase the U.S. presence in international standard-
setting bodies, such as the Codex Alimentarius, the
International Plant Protection Convention, and the World Animal
Health Organization. Increasing in U.S. representation in these
and other similar international agricultural health
organizations are critical to harmonizing multilateral food,
plant, and animal safety standards. By ensuring these
international health and safety protection standards are
properly designed and implemented, the U.S. can avoid
unwarranted technical barriers that threaten opportunities for
two-way trade.
3. Provide enhanced monitoring, analytical support, and other
technical assistance to support U.S. agriculture in bringing
forward or responding to significant trade disputes and
challenges. For example, U.S. specialty crop exports are
sometimes threatened by rampant trademark piracy in
international markets. USDA technical assistance could help the
specialty crop industry address these threats.
Nutrition Title
We propose that new mandatory funding be provided for the purchase
of additional fruits and vegetables for use in the National School
Lunch and Breakfast Programs. This $500 million over 10 years
represents a net increase in the total purchase of fruit and vegetables
for school meals over levels available under any other authorities. It
reflects recent changes in the Dietary Guidelines for Americans and a
recommendation from the Department's Fruit and Vegetable Industry
Advisory Committee that endorses a substantial increase in produce
commodities being offered within the school lunch program to improve
the nutrition of the nation's school children.
We propose to establish a new five year, $20 million per year
competitive grant demonstration program to develop and test solutions
to the rising problem of obesity in low-income Americans. These funds,
for example, could be used to examine such things as incentives at
point-of-sale for purchases of fruits and vegetables by food stamp
participants.
We propose the reauthorization or The Emergency Food Assistance
Program (TEFAP) and recommend more fruits and vegetables be provided
under Section 32 authority through this program.
Rural Development Title
We propose the priority consideration be given to project
applications involving specialty crops under the Rural Development
Value-Added Grants program.
Energy Title
We propose that a new, temporary program be initiated to provide
$100 million in direct support to producers of cellulosic ethanol.
Eligibility for this program would be restricted to specialty crop
wastes and other cellulosic biomass feedstocks.
Research Title
We propose that $1 billion be invested over 10 years to establish a
Specialty Crop Research Initiative that would provide science-based
tools for the specialty crop industry. This will support both
intramural and extramural research programs across the country and
address the critical needs of specific crops and regions.
Miscellaneous Title
We propose that an additional $2.75 billion of funds made available
under Section 32 of the Act of August 24, 1935, be utilized over 10
years to increase purchases of fruit and vegetables for food and
nutrition programs.
It should be noted that the Department's proposal does not mention
the Specialty Crop Block Grant program. This program is authorized
through 2009 by the Specialty Crop Competitiveness Act of 2004 subject
to appropriation. Since this program is in its infancy, we thought it
best to have a few more years of demonstrable results before
recommending further action by Congress. The Agriculture, Rural
Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act. 2006, provided $7 million for this program. To
date, grants have been awarded to Texas, Mississippi, North Carolina,
Oklahoma, and Michigan.
Planting Restrictions
Finally, let me discuss our proposal to remove planting
restrictions on traditional program crops base acres.
The World Trade Organization (WTO) has raised questions as to
whether planting restrictions on base acres that are tied to commodity
payments puts our direct payment support for wheat. rice, grain
sorghum, barley, oats, peanuts, corn, cotton and oilseeds outside of
WTO green box. Some have c1aimed that, because of planting
restrictions, direct payments should be considered amber box--which
could affect our current WTO support limit and our compliance with
current trade agreements. Eliminating planting restrictions ensures
that we comply with our WTO commitments and positions us for the
future, keeping our exports-production from one of every three acres--
flowing without WTO challenge.
Importantly too many farmers who want to produce specialty crops in
addition to program crops are already doing so, and the current
planting restrictions do not appear to inhibit them.
According to a recent study by USDA's Economic Research Service new
entrants to the specially crop business have been relatively few in
number. The reason does not appear to be because of planting
restrictions, but rather for reasons related to the specialty crop
business, itself--
the need for specialized equipment,
the need for specialized expertise to be successful in
producing and marketing specialty crops,
higher production costs for fruit and vegetables,
the need for labor to harvest for the fresh market,
the need to be near a processing plant and have a contract
for processing of produce, and
a limited, seasonal production window in most states other
than California, Florida. Arizona, and Texas.
Organic Agriculture
Congress passed the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA) in 1990.
The OFPA required USDA to develop national standards for organically
produced agricultural products to assure consumers that agricultural
products marketed as organic meet consistent, uniform standards. The
OFPA and the National Organic Program (NOP) regulation require that
agricultural products labeled as organic originate from farms or
handling operations certified by a State or private entity that has
been accredited by USDA.
The national organic standards and organic certification program
are based on recommendations of the l5-member National Organic
Standards Board (NOSB). The NOSB is appointed by the Secretary of
Agriculture and is comprised of representatives from the following
categories: farmer/grower; handler/processor; retailer; consumer/public
interest; environmentalist; scientist; and certifying agent.
The National List of Allowed Synthetic and Prohibited Non-Synthetic
Substances, a section in the regulation, contains specific guidance on
substances allowed and prohibited in organic production. Organic crops
are raised without using most conventional pesticides, petroleum-based
fertilizers, or sewage sludge-based fertilizers. Animals raised on an
organic operation must be fed organic feed and given access to the
outdoors. Animals fed or treated with antibiotics or growth hormones
may not be used in organic food production. Labeling standards are
based on the percentage of organic ingredients in a product.
Certification standards establish the requirements that organic
production and handling operations must meet to become accredited by
USDA-accredited organic certifying agents. The standards are designed
to ensure that all organic certifying agents act consistently and
impartially.
Imported organic agricultural products may be sold in the United
States if they are certified by USDA-accredited organic certifying
agents. USDA has accredited certifying agents in several countries.
U.S. sales of organic food and beverages have grown rapidly--from
$1 billion in 1990 to an estimated $14.5 billion in 2005.
USDA Farm Bill Proposals for Organic Farming
Demand for organic products is increasing and thus more farmers are
interested in transitioning from traditional farming to organic
farming. However, the requirements to be certified organic are lengthy
and can be quite costly, especially for small farmers. In addition, a
key to expanded opportunity in organic production is adequate market
data to inform farmers, processors, wholesalers and retailers. And,
organic farmers, just like traditional farmers, are looking for
opportunities in the global marketplace.
The Department's farm bill proposal recognizes the needs of the
organic agricultural industry and identities several initiatives to
assist it. These organic farming initiatives represent $61 million in
additional funding over 10 years.
We propose to expand and increase the cost-share certification
reimbursement program for all states and for all producers and
processors. Reimbursement would be increased from the current $500
annually to $750 annually or 75 percent of certification costs,
whichever is lowest. This program has been very helpful to producers
transitioning to organic farming, and expanding this program will help
the organic sector continue to grow.
We propose that $1 million be available until expended to fund the
collection and publication of organic production and market data.
Conventional farmers have access to USDA data that they can use to plan
crop plantings and make marketing decisions. Organic farmers and those
wishing to transition into organic fanning currently lack solid data on
the supply of key organic commodities as well as pricing for these
commodities.
We propose to invest an additional $10 million until expended in
organic research. This new funding would focus on conservation and
environmental outcomes and new and improved seed varieties especially
suited for organic agriculture.
We propose that eligibility for enhanced Environmental Quality
Incentives Program (EQIP) cost-share assistance include a broad range
of land uses, including organically farmed land. And obviously, organic
farmers are fully eligible for participation in the expanded
Conservation Security Program.
We propose that funding for the Market Access Program (MAP) be
increased by $250 million over 10 years with the additional funds being
focused on non-program commodities, including organically grown non-
program commodities. As is now the case, organic agriculture would be
allowed to compete for Market Access Program funding to help develop
and increase the organic export market.
Conclusion
Thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you today. We
look forward to working with the Subcommittee and the specialty crops
and organic industries to continue to assist and promote these very
important components of U.S. agriculture. I will be happy to answer any
questions that Members might have for me.
The Chairman. Thank you, Deputy Secretary Conner. We
welcome you again and appreciate your comments. We will now
open it to several rounds of questioning. I will begin, we will
limit our questions to 5 minutes and take turns around the
dais.
The Administration proposes to expand mandatory funding for
the Market Access Program as you said by $250 million over 10
years. With a focus of distributing for non-program
commodities, a similar proposal has been advanced by the
specialty crop industry. Can you elaborate on how the
Department could implement such a non-program priority? Would
you allocate the funding based on crop value or some other
mechanism, possibly the number of grant applications received
or what would your criteria be in this regard?
Mr. Conner. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the question. As you
have noted, we do specifically identify the additional funding
above and beyond the current discretionary funding for MAP as
being for specialty, the specialty crop sector. We would
continue to allocate that under the procedures that we use
currently. Those are competitive procedures, as you know, Mr.
Chairman, where we evaluate each project. Evaluate it in terms
of potential for increased market demand for that investment.
Obviously we do take into account the factors as well how much
the industry themselves may be putting forth as part of that
proposal as well. We see those processes not changing, simply,
though, identifying that this would be additional money
available just for the non-program crops. But same procedure.
The Chairman. Okay. Thank you. You propose also $2.75
billion increase in Section 32 funds----
Mr. Conner. Yes.
The Chairman.--over 10 years as you said to purchase fruits
and vegetables for the National School Lunch Program and other
nutrition programs. While I certainly support the fruit and
vegetable purchased by the Federal spending programs, Section
32 is also used to balance the market. In the case where there
is overproduction of a certain commodity, would it make sense
to strengthen the existing Specialty Crop Block Grant Program
or something similar to improve competitiveness in the
specialty crop industry thereby reducing the dependence of
Section 32 bonus buys?
Mr. Conner. Okay. Let me answer that question, Chairman
Cardoza, this way. We believe the purchases themselves under
Section 32 provide obviously a very, very important benefit to
the specialty crop producers out there. But as well I have to
tell you that we see it also providing a great benefit to the
recipient of those commodities. As has been noted in the past,
obviously, much of what USDA's food and nutrition efforts are
about is better eating habits for all Americans. These range
from our USDA food pyramid to our 5-a-day Fruit and Vegetable
Plan. We are about encouraging greater consumption of fruits
and vegetables within all of our community.
So, in this regard making those purchased fruits and
vegetables available through our feeding program. Feeding
programs including the School Lunch Program we believe is not
only beneficial to the growers, but it is very, very consistent
and beneficial to the recipients of that product as well. So we
would not want to see that necessarily replaced or I don't
think phased out.
I would add at this point as well I know Mr. Goodlatte did
raise this question, the $2.75 billion we see as being
additional to any current purchases that may be happening under
Section 32 as well. This is a sizeable amount we feel, and
again, it has great benefit for the producers but also great
benefit for the health and nutrition of a lot of different,
particularly low-income Americans out there.
The Chairman. I am somewhat concerned about creating a
situation where growers are completely relying or substantially
relying on the Federal Government instead of using the Federal
Government resources to create new markets. As a follow up from
Secretary Johanns' response at the full Committee hearing, it
seems that the Department concluded that the Block Grant
Program was not really a farm bill program.
I am confused by that answer since there are a number of
proposals within your recommendations such as the new
cellulosic energy proposal that looked to me like totally new
programs.
Mr. Conner. Yes.
The Chairman. Do you think this is a viable tool for
specialty crop agriculture, related to agriculture policy,
first of all. Second of all, if you could just respond to how
you believe this program fits within the PAYGO rules and the
baseline budget questions that we are going to have to deal
with as Members of Congress to fit this all into this new
program?
Mr. Conner. With regard to your question, Mr. Chairman, on
the Block Grant Program, let me just say we have no beef or
concern with that program whatsoever. It is authorized through
2009, I believe. Seven million dollars is available and we are
in the process of administering in coordination with the
individual state departments of agriculture. We have already
issued a few of those grants to some of the state departments
of agriculture. We are going to continue to administer that
program according to the law through 2009. So, again, we have
no concern or hesitancy on that program at all.
Just in terms of the broader market development issues,
certainly I agree with your statement that the government
should not be the developer or the provider of that particular
market going forward in the future. As you know, Mr. Chairman,
throughout this bill there are a number of provision that do
prioritize specialty crops by giving them mandatory funding,
not funding that is subject to further appropriation, but
mandatory dollars, including, as I noted in my statement, a
billion dollars for a new Specialty Crop Research Program that
we believe will make a huge impact in this area in terms of
market development. Market development in terms of new
varieties, market development in terms of food safety, sanitary
and phytosanitary issues, all the issues we have talked. This
is a very, very sizeable investment, not subject to further
action by another committee in this Congress but money
available immediately.
The Chairman. Thank you. I will wait for your response on
the fiscal questions in writing.
Mr. Conner. If I could, I will just say as Secretary
Johanns has noted, Mr. Chairman, our farm bill proposals fit
within the guidelines that have been laid out by the president
in terms of a balanced Federal budget, within 5 years. We
worked very, very closely with the Office for Management and
Budget in terms of coming up with out additional $5 billion
that we have added to our farm bill proposal over the current
baseline. It is fully consistent with that plan, and we have no
problem there at all.
The Chairman. Thank you. I would just like to note that
your comment with regard to the research component. I did three
listening sessions last week: one in California, one in Oregon,
and one in Washington. In every case the main topic of
conversation was the research dollars and the need for research
dollars to stay competitive in the global market.
I am going to take the liberty of asking one more question.
It is a very important issue to this Subcommittee and it is one
that is breaking in the news as we speak. As I am sure you are
well aware, the current crisis concerning the declining bee
population and its' impact on specialty crops. Would anything
in your proposal be effective in mitigating the bee shortage on
fruit and vegetable production? How can we better provide USDA
with the tools it needs to respond to these types of somewhat
obscure and unanticipated challenges? We received testimony,
and The New York Times yesterday reported that bees are fleeing
the hives to where, in some cases, over 50 percent of the hives
are coming up empty. So if you can respond to that I would
appreciate it.
Mr. Conner. I would, Mr. Chairman. Let me just say that I
first became aware of this issue last week, so this is not
something that has been on our radar screen or my radar screen
certainly for a long period of time, but I am aware of it. I
have been advised actually that our Agricultural Research
Service does have facilities in Beltsville, Logan, Utah, I
believe in Texas, in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, as well that are
currently doing agriculture research related to bee activity.
So this is something very, very relevant to the types of things
that we are currently doing. I see us having a substantial role
here in terms of identifying this problem and getting to the
bottom of it in terms of a potential solution.
Again, let me just say you mentioned agriculture research
and the billion dollars that we have proposed. I see this type
of activity being very relevant to the types of things that we
see in the future that money going for, in addition to the
ongoing activities that are currently going on within our own
ARS facilities.
The Chairman. Excellent. I am anticipating in the next few
weeks to have an additional hearing or a segment of a larger
hearing dedicated to this topic, so I look forward to working
with the Department on this issue.
Mr. Conner. Yes. I am sure we have some technical expertise
that would be very useful to you in that process, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you very much. I would now like to turn
it over to my colleague, Mr. Neugebauer, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Neugebauer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, in
regard to some of your nutrition programs and the increasing
purchase of fruits and vegetables, I think $50 million has been
set aside for school lunch or school nutrition programs. I
think in the 2002 Farm Bill there was a pilot program that was
called for. What has been your experience with the pilot
program? Second, what kind of reception have you received from
the schools? And third, is the infrastructure in place to be
able to deliver these? I am assuming maybe these are fresh
fruits and vegetables that we are talking about. So could you
kindly elaborate a bit on that for me?
Mr. Conner. I will indeed. I think you are correct that in
the 2002 Farm Bill they did establish a fruit and vegetable
pilot project that basically became an afternoon snack program
for fresh fruits and vegetables as part of the School Lunch
Program. I think that program is a popular program. I don't
believe we have had testimony from anyone against that
particular effort. Again, it is consistent with our effort to
encourage greater fruit and vegetable consumption among school-
aged children.
The $500 million we propose I think is very, very
consistent with that relatively small fruit and vegetable pilot
project. We made a decision in this case to make it available
to the schools in a less targeted sort of way. The fruits and
vegetables would be made available, the schools would have the
flexibility if they wanted to use those as part of their
breakfast program, part of their school lunch program, or if
they wanted to continue with the concept of an afternoon snack
program. Schools would have that flexibility to use the $500
million in that way. That is how we envisioned it. It was just
maximum flexibility to the schools with the same purpose of
encouraging greater consumption.
Mr. Neugebauer. Who distributes those fruits and vegetables
to the schools?
Mr. Conner. We will provide a complete answer to that
question for the record. Mr. Chairman, the School Lunch Program
funding is broken out between cash assistance that we provide
to the schools so they are able to go out and purchase the
commodities and the food that they need to prepare a meal
within our guidelines. I believe the figure is 20 percent of
the help that we provide through the School Lunch Program is
actually in the form of commodities as well that we purchase
and make available through local vendors for those schools to
use as well. So it is cash and commodities.
Mr. Neugebauer. So what you are saying is maybe 80 percent
of that would be cash, and they would be able to purchase that
from a local distributor?
Mr. Conner. That is correct.
Mr. Neugebauer. Twenty percent of it may be given in
commodities where that makes sense.
Mr. Conner. That is correct.
Mr. Neugebauer. If you have a little more breakdown on that
or detail----
Mr. Conner. I would be happy to provide that for the
record.
Mr. Neugebauer. Ok. I think you are proposing an additional
$10 million by year for specialty crop research. How much are
we spending for specialty crop research today? Do you have that
figure?
Mr. Conner. We can pull together those total figures for
you.
Mr. Neugebauer. Somebody just pulled that together for you,
I think.
Mr. Conner. Yes. We were anticipating that question.
According to the data we have for fruits and vegetables, Mr.
Chairman, for 2006 it is just slightly under $200 million, I
believe, $199 million.
Mr. Neugebauer. When I was in the Chairman's district we
heard as we traveled around, even from the gentleman from New
York, we heard the research piece over and over again. By
bringing forth this additional funding, have you identified
where the gaps are currently in the research? Do you have
targeted places where you think this additional funding should
go?
Mr. Conner. We have not yet, Mr. Chairman. The dollars that
we are proposing are competitive dollars that will be awarded
through a competitive process. Determinations would be made in
terms of the extent of the problem that we are trying to
address and how much benefit we can provide to the producers as
a result of that. It is sort of a cost benefit calculation that
goes through our competitive process. So these are all
competitive-based dollars that we envision all of our
institutions having the ability to compete for.
Mr. Neugebauer. Well, I want to encourage you to do one
thing, and I know it is one thing that Secretary Johanns and
yourself have done already; you have reached out to industry
groups, and when you had issues you brought them in and you
listened to them. I think it would be very helpful as we are
talking about additional resources here, that while it would be
a very competitive process from the universities, and they will
all have wonderful ideas and ways for you to spend the money, I
think it would be very beneficial to make sure that these
additional resources go to what the industry feels are some of
the key areas where they need additional research to solve some
of those issues that are going on within the industry.
Mr. Conner. I agree, Mr. Neugebauer, and as you know, we
have a number of fruit and vegetable advisory committees within
the Department of Agriculture that are really very key to how
we proceed on these fronts. I am reminded as well, just to
close quickly here, in terms of our additional research versus
what is currently going on, I think our people and from the
testimony we received felt that food safety and pest and
disease were the areas where probably the current research
dollars aren't adequate enough to address the extent of the
problems that we have seen develop out there over the last
couple of years. So while these aren't competitive dollars, we
certainly see those two areas being ones that are likely to be
the recipient of those competitive dollars.
Mr. Neugebauer. Thank you very much.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Neugebauer. I would like to
now recognize the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Etheridge,
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Etheridge. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Deputy
Secretary, thank you for being here. I apologize for not being
here earlier, but I have two hearings going on at the same time
this morning as you can appreciate others do as well. So let me
thank you for your testimony.
Some of the proposals for increasing the funding for
conservation would be welcomed. I know you can appreciate that,
particularly the recommended increases in EQIP because that is
certainly important to my state where we have an awful lot of
concentration of poultry, pork, and some dairy. But I must say
that there should be a serious examination of some of the
proposed funding pieces used to get the dollars to fund these
increases.
Mr. Conner. Yes.
Mr. Etheridge. In particular, the new payment limitations
would probably have a pretty serious problem in a number of
parts of the country, but with respect to specialty crops, this
is important to my state as well.
Mr. Conner. Yes.
Mr. Etheridge. My district is the nation's leading producer
of sweet potatoes, and we grow a variety of specialty crops,
especially in the wake of the tobacco buyout. A lot of folks
are expanding into new ventures. So as you mentioned in your
testimony the organic food market is booming.
Mr. Conner. Yes.
Mr. Etheridge. We have an awful lot of people who have
taken advantage of that because it is adjacent to some fast-
growing urban areas. Can you tell me some of the ways that EQIP
funding can be directed to producers to assist them in the
transition of becoming organic producers, and are there
unexplored areas where USDA could help these aspiring organic
farmers in these adjacent areas for marketing, i.e., farm to
market assistance?
Mr. Conner. Yes.
Mr. Etheridge. Is USDA making an effort to integrate these
healthier foods into the school lunch and the school breakfast
programs? The latter being very important as we look at the
challenge our schools face with children on Ritalin and the
need to make sure they get good, healthy food.
Mr. Conner. I appreciate the question, Mr. Etheridge. Let
me just say that we do have a very strong, what I believe is a
very strong organic section in this bill. First and foremost
with your question as to EQIP, organic producers are fully
eligible for those additional, for all of those EQIP dollars. I
believe that EQIP can play a significant role for those
producers in terms of meeting those requirements.
In addition within our organic section we have provided an
additional $61 million worth of funding, specifically, for
organic agriculture, focused on a couple of different areas. We
heard a lot of testimony that producers do have a difficult
time transitioning to organic agriculture away from traditional
farming. In this way we have provided some help for those
producers in the past in certain states. We are expanding that
help for them in terms of their certification as being organic
to all 50 states. We have raised the amount of assistance that
we will be paying them in that regard, as well.
Mr. Etheridge. When will that be available?
Mr. Conner. It would be available upon passage of this
bill. Obviously, we would have to administer and go through a
process to implement that, but we see that as being a pretty
straightforward process that wouldn't take too much time at
all. And so, again, I think that would provide substantial
help.
The other area that I did note in my opening remarks, too,
Mr. Etheridge, is the fact that one of the points that we heard
in organic agriculture is since this is still a relatively new
industry, albeit a very rapidly growing one, the amount of data
and market information that we have within USDA on this is
pretty limited. Much of our marketing reports and our data
still does focus upon traditional agricultural methods as you
might expect, and there is----
Mr. Etheridge. Well, I think that----
Mr. Conner.--a need for more data so that these producers
can use that to make their own projections and analysis in
terms of markets.
Mr. Etheridge. Well, I would encourage you to move quickly
in that area, because I think that area is going to grow.
Mr. Conner. Absolutely.
Mr. Etheridge. Before my time runs out let me ask one final
question.
Mr. Conner. Yes.
Mr. Etheridge. Can you tell me what USDA is proposing when
they propose to bring more specialty crop producers into the
crop insurance program? Another Subcommittee that I am a part
of has some jurisdiction on that and everywhere we have been in
hearings we have heard that. I think the low level
participation is an indication because the insurance coverage
is not there for the premium costs. I would be interested in
your comments on that.
Mr. Conner. If we could, Mr. Etheridge, let me just, I will
submit a response to you in writing for the record to that
particular question.
Mr. Etheridge. If you would, please and if you could also
make sure every Member on this Committee gets a copy of that.
That would be great.
Mr. Conner. Absolutely. We would be happy to do that.
Mr. Etheridge. Thank you, sir.
The Chairman. I would like to follow up on the gentleman's
question that as I have traveled around, especially crop
producers just simply do not feel that there is value in the
insurance program as it is currently constructed.
I would like to now turn it over and recognize the
gentleman from New York, Mr. Kuhl, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Kuhl. Thank you for appearing, Deputy Secretary Conner.
Mr. Conner. Yes.
Mr. Kuhl. Just for your information, I have submitted a
list of questions to Secretary Johanns and am anxiously
awaiting response of those. Anything you can do to stimulate
the acceleration of those responses would be very greatly
appreciated.
Mr. Conner. Absolutely. We will check on the status of
those.
Mr. Kuhl. But as I was sitting here listening to your
comments and your opening testimony, I was very interested in
the aspect that you outlined without a great deal of
specificity, and that deals with a billion dollars of new
research over the next 10 years.
Mr. Conner. Yes.
Mr. Kuhl. I was thinking about some of the problems in my
home district, the 29th Congressional District of New York. It
is in the Finger Lakes Area, where there is one of the fastest
expanding and most optimistic enterprises is the grape
industry. Fifteen years ago we had not more than 15 major
wineries. Today it is over 260 and it is very competitive. One
of the issues that confronts us in this world of global warming
is the severe winters that we are experiencing in upstate New
York. One of those problems that is reflected in the grape
industry is the loss of some of the vines and some of the root
stock, particularly in the Riesling area.
I am curious as to, from your perspective, if I was a small
grape farmer growing say 40 acres of Rieslings, and I
experience severe winters like we have in upstate New York and
watch 80 percent of my crop get wiped out after the third
severe winter, knowing that there is a billion dollars out
there in research, how might I anticipate that the United
States Department of Agriculture is going to help out my
industry? I have heard you talk about competitive grants, and
thinking from a small producer's standpoint, how am I going to
stay competitive, and how am I going to replace my crop? I am
aware that one of my producers actually tried to bring in a
product from Germany to beat the severe winters and he was
frustrated with the impediments put in place by USDA in
actually importing those root stocks. I am curious if we are
not going to be able to do that as an alternative, is research
going to provide an alternative answer to this person? I would
be interested in your comments.
Mr. Conner. I appreciate your question. Let me just say I
think it is important to note that, initially, given the types
of winters that you have experienced in upstate New York, I
don't want to start to sound like a snake oil salesman here and
say that we have a solution for every circumstance. I mean,
these have been some awfully compelling conditions, and all
producers suffer during those types of conditions. So I know
why you want to characterize our proposal as being able to
overcome when producers oftentimes can lose all of their crop
or production in a situation like this.
But to your point I think genetics, particularly for
specialty crops, in this case grapes, are a very critical
aspect of where we see future research taking us. Genetics that
may be for disease resistance, or for weather resistance, but
the whole area of research in those plant genetics is very
critical. We have been investing heavily in our program crops
via genetics research. I think we are lagging behind in this
area. I see, again, that $1 billion as having a great deal of
focus upon plant varieties and the genetics behind those
varieties to enable producers to better withstand the types of
conditions that they are facing out there; whether those
conditions are from the weather, pest, or some other
combination.
Mr. Kuhl. Help me understand the practicality of the
application of this money to the small grape farmer that I
spelled out? How is he actually going to be able to access that
money? Is he going to be competitive? Is upstate New York going
to be competitive with the California wine industry? How are
you going to determine that competitiveness for an application
for a grant? Certainly that individual, who is dependent upon
that produce is not going to be able to do it, so are you going
to be dependent in the process that you are going to set up for
this research on universities, like the ag center at Cornell
University, or some of the other universities? How is that
going to happen? Help me understand that.
Mr. Conner. Well, just to give you a practical example, I
think you probably identified how the process would work in a
circumstance like this. A very practical example would be an
institution like Cornell University, a land-grant institution,
acknowledging these problems out there working with the
cooperative extension offices that are out there in the
counties dealing with the producers, putting forth a proposal
to address that particular need. Cornell University, or some
other institution, would submit to the Department of
Agriculture a grant request that would be evaluated on a
competitive basis. I think that would be a very practical way
in which you would see funding for this happen. I would not
necessarily claim that a small producer out there is going to
get grant funding for his individual operation. Perhaps that
could happen, but it is probably not likely. I think working
through his extension office or working through the land-grant
institution would be a very typical path that would take.
Mr. Kuhl. Thank you, Mr. Deputy Secretary. I see my time
has expired. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Now I would like to call on the gentleman
from Florida, Mr. Mahoney, a new Member of the Committee.
Mr. Mahoney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have to say that
the snacks on this Committee are far better than the Financial
Services Committee.
The Chairman. We aim to please, sir.
Mr. Mahoney. I want to begin by thanking the Secretary for
taking the time in what I hope will be a first step to better
address the concerns of American specialty crop farmers. I
represent the Sixteenth Congressional District of Florida,
which is in central Florida. It runs from Palm Beach County all
the way to Punta Gorda in Charlotte County. One of the most
important issues affecting farmers in my district, and around
the State of Florida, is plant and animal diseases. I recently
had the opportunity to talk to the Agriculture Commissioner in
Florida, Mr. Bronson, as he was highlighting to me the
devastating effects of pests and diseases on Florida's
agricultural industry, especially pests and diseases that enter
the state through our numerous ports. In fact, I am told that
Florida receives an average introduction of one new insect
species each month. The cost to taxpayers of combating these
pests and diseases after their introduction is enormous. The
State of Florida, the Federal Government, and industry spent
almost a billion dollars last year in eradication efforts for
just one disease, citrus canker. And a recent GAO report that
management and coordination problems between the U.S.
Department of Homeland Security's Customs and Border Protection
and USDA's APHIS are increasing the vulnerability of specialty
crops to foreign pests and disease.
I know you have a limited amount of time, but I was hoping
that you could address the issue from two perspectives. First,
what efforts is the Administration taking to improve the
coordination between CBP and APHIS in order to better protect
our specialty crops? And second, I noted in the proposal that
USDA is recommending investing $100 million in annual mandatory
spending to create a new specialty crop research initiative to
address the needs of the specialty crop industry. The proposal
goes on to say that one of the many focuses of the initiative
will be to continue efforts to identify threats from invasive
species such as citrus greening.
Mr. Conner. Yes.
Mr. Mahoney. Which as you know has, in every country where
it has hit, it has destroyed the industry. Can you elaborate
further on how the Administration foresees the money being
divided between the many focuses that you have to ensure that
we are getting enough dollars to address this greening problem?
Mr. Conner. In response to your latter question, Mr.
Mahoney, let me just say that we are well aware of the threats
that the Florida citrus industry has been facing over the last
several years. We have been really a big partner with the
Florida Department of Agriculture, and with Charlie Bronson, in
dealing with these issues, particularly the citrus canker
issue. Our investment in terms of the Department of Agriculture
has been very substantial.
With regard to citrus greening as well, we are well aware
of the potential devastating consequences that it would have,
and for that reason we actually did highlight it in terms of
our own explanation of the types of money that we see the
billion dollars addressing out there. This is a major threat to
a very large industry in the State of Florida, as you know.
Again, these are competitive dollars where each sector has to
compete, but we know that given the size and the magnitude that
citrus greening could potentially have in Florida, we feel
pretty confident that some of the billion dollars will go
toward research activities for Florida citrus. In this case,
greening, as well as citrus canker, is where we already have a
very substantial investment with the State of Florida on that.
In terms of your border patrol situation, this issue did
come up pretty extensively with Secretary Johanns and our
testimony yesterday in the Senate. I will tell you that we do
coordinate. We coordinate closely with the Department of
Homeland Security in terms of the management of those Border
Protection individuals that are out there. They work closely
with our APHIS personnel in this way. In fact, they are trained
and operate under the guidelines established by APHIS. This is
something we continue to monitor closely. We want to work with
this Committee and others to identify areas that they may see
of concern out there in terms of potential gaps, because we do
understand the consequences if one of these diseases get in
this country and gets a foothold, the cost and the investment
for our agency in controlling that is very substantial. If we
can prevent it and keep it from coming here, that is far and
away the most cost-effective means of dealing with that
problem.
Mr. Mahoney. But with all due respect, don't you think that
we should be much more proactive in what we are doing, more
along the lines of what CDC does with potential threats to
human health? I mean, given the problems that are coming in and
continuing to hit our shores, wouldn't that make sense?
Mr. Conner. Well, I am not going to say that there aren't
areas that we ought to look at. Obviously, we are always open
to evaluate our border control activities, but I guess my point
to you is that we are closely coordinating. Our agency and our
APHIS personnel who are specialists in this disease control
area are working very closely with DHS at this point to make
sure that we have the proper safety net in place to prevent
these diseases from coming in to the U.S. Again, whether it is
Avian flu, foot-in-mouth disease, or other agents, I think our
track record, while we have many problems, our record for
keeping some of these severe foreign animal diseases out of
this country has been pretty good at this point. But I wouldn't
stand here and in any way claim that this is not an ongoing
effort that we always need to look to how we can improve.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Mahoney. I would now like to
recognize and welcome to the Committee the gentleman from
California, Mr. McCarthy. While he is not a member of the
Portuguese Caucus, we have welcomed him to the Central Valley
delegation in any case.
Mr. McCarthy. Well, I thank the Chairman. He has been very
kind. Mr. Deputy Secretary, I am from California's Central
Valley, a little farther south than our Chairman. I would like
to follow up the gentleman from Florida, because a little later
this year we are going to have international flights into
Bakersfield. I understand the movement to Homeland Security for
doing the inspections, but is there a point that we should
consider actually moving this back? Have we thought of that?
Because under Homeland Security you are looking at intentional,
which rightfully so they should be. But with the unintentional
when these insects come through, and the one thing I am hearing
from my constituents is the morale is down. Is there a way that
we can boost that? Is there any consideration of moving it back
to APHIS?
Mr. Conner. We are not in any way reviewing potentially
changing the current structure for our Border Protection agents
out there, sir. Again, I will tell you that we don't seek that.
We feel like we have very open communication, very open
dialogue with DHS. Again, we share training activities with
these border agents, with the Department of Homeland Security,
and where they are located I don't think it is something we are
considering. We just want to make sure they are trained and
that they have the personnel and the resources there to do the
job. Again, I think the track record does tell you that these
people do their jobs well. I can't speak to the morale, but
certainly we believe that they have done their job well in the
past. To the extent we identify gaps, we want to work with you
to make sure that potential future problems, whether that is in
Bakersfield or wherever else that we work with the Department
of Homeland Security to make sure that they have the trained
personnel looking for the right potential threats at those
locations.
Mr. McCarthy. Well, I appreciate that. If I could just
change course for a second, you talked a little bit about
lifting the planting restrictions with the flex acreage.
Mr. Conner. Yes.
Mr. McCarthy. I come from the Central Valley of California.
We grow a lot of fresh fruits and nuts. When the Secretary was
here, I asked him if we have researched the actual dollar
amount that this would impact. He gave me the Department's
Economic Research Service article.
Mr. Conner. Yes.
Mr. McCarthy. But it didn't give me a specific number of
the impact, and Cal Poly Specialty Crop Institute in an
industry study shows that current impact to growers will be in
excess of $3 billion. Is that a number that the Department
thinks, or is there a number internally that people have?
Mr. Conner. Yes. We haven't seen the Cal Poly results. I do
go back to the Economic Research Service report that I think
the Secretary gave you from February 2007. I believe there was
some data in there which suggested contrary to perhaps what you
may be seeing, and again, we have not seen that particular
report. Overall, the impact of changing these planting
restrictions is limited. I think the report did acknowledge
that there could be some slight regional concerns among certain
crops where it could be a notable change in that. I will just
tell you respectfully, we feel very strongly that we have to
correct this WTO problem. If not corrected, this problem could
threaten to undermine all of our green payment options that we
have been making out there, claiming not to have any trade
distorting aspects. If that is no longer the case, if we don't
fix that problem, we are threatening all of those payments,
which means we are threatening the fact that we are in
compliance with our WTO obligations. Being out of compliance
with those obligations is not good news for any sector in the
American farm economy, including the fruit and vegetable sector
as well. It could have potentially large ramifications.
Mr. McCarthy. Just to follow up, I do agree with you that
we have a concern there, but are you thinking of any other
creative options of other ways besides just doing the blanket
lifting? Are there any other ideas that can meet that criteria
with----
Mr. Conner. Well, let me just say as well that I think it
is important to note that under our proposal obviously we are
purchasing a very substantial amount of fruits and vegetables
under our plan. Now, we purchase those fruits and vegetables,
first of all, based upon the need and the demand out there in
the marketplace. But, secondly, obviously, we are always
looking to procure those commodities that are in surplus
supply, where the price is good and readily available. We think
that is a prudent use of government resources to buy the
commodities in demand that happen to be a very good price at
this particular time. We believe that purchase requirements
would give us a lot of flexibility to, if there was a
particular sector out there that for some reason was identified
as having a potential impact as a result of this change, we
believe we have the tools to help to mitigate that impact on
that particular sector with our purchase requirement as well.
So, again, we feel very confident in saying that the impact
is minimal. In that regional, and in that very isolated
circumstance where it may not be minimal, we have the tools to
deal with that. But fundamentally we have to deal with this WTO
problem.
Mr. McCarthy. Well, I think it might be minimal but
regionally it could be a very large impact. But thank you very
much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. I would like to thank the gentleman from
California and also acknowledge both the gentlemen from Florida
and from California for talking about the inspection situation.
In the EAT Healthy America Act that both these gentlemen, most
of the Members of the Committee, and I are cosponsors of, we
do, in fact, propose to move the inspections back to APHIS from
DHS. Our experience in the real world out there is saying it is
not working at all under the current structure of the
Department. And we are very concerned about the implications
for specialty crops and, frankly, all crops in the country.
I would now like to recognize the gentlelady from New York,
Kirsten Gillibrand, for 5 minutes and welcome her to the
Committee.
Mrs. Gillibrand. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is my honor to
be here. I come from upstate New York, and we have a lot of
apples, fresh produce, dairy, and some organic farming. So your
testimony today is particularly interesting. One question I
have about the President's and the Administration's proposals
about the conservation title, some of our farmers are concerned
by the proposal of the President to combine working lands and
conservation programs. They are worried that doing this is
somehow going to result in less funding overall. Can you
explain the Administration's intention? And can you please
comment on whether or not it will reduce funding for these
kinds of programs?
Mr. Conner. No. We do consolidate a number of programs.
EQIP is the result of a consolidation of a few different
programs. Our easement programs are consolidated into one
working lands effort as well, farmland protection effort as
well. But I think in all of those cases we took the combined
funding of all of those programs and then increased the funding
on top of that combined level. So there is no----
Mrs. Gillibrand. There will be no shortfall?
Mr. Conner. There is no consolidation and then cut from
that consolidation. The funding is above and beyond anything
that each of those combined programs would have represented.
Mrs. Gillibrand. Thank you. That is good news.
Mr. Conner. Yes.
Mrs. Gillibrand. I would also like to ask a couple of
questions about the energy title.
Mr. Conner. Yes.
Mrs. Gillibrand. You have directed $100 million for direct
support for producers of cellulosic ethanol. In our district
there is a lot of potential for cellulosic ethanol, not only
with switchgrass but the wood pulp fibers that aren't used in
the paper-making process, and other biomass feed stocks. My
concern is that this really isn't enough, because there is so
much money that is being put up towards ethanol, in general,
that the corn markets are going up, so for our farmers, our
dairy farmers, their grain prices are going up. So if we really
want to move this market to get a more diverse market where we
are looking at these other sources that, in fact, may be more
cost efficient over the long term once we begin the research
and development and figure out how to do it cost effectively, I
am concerned that this is not enough to really move that market
in a different direction.
Mr. Conner. Well, let me just say that we believe we have a
very substantial investment under our energy title. We see it
as having three different components for the promotion of
cellulosic ethanol. The first is a research component.
Cellulosic ethanol, we have been told and advised in some of
our meetings is basically trying to use technologies and
enzymes, if you will, that oftentimes are devised for a corn-
based type process in terms of the development of this
industry. And so, you just need some basic research going on
out there on enzymes, processes, all this type of stuff
designed specifically for cellulosic ethanol, and we have that
investment in this bill.
The second part of it is, obviously, that there needs to be
some work done, in terms of the producers' growing of this
particular product so that it is--if the option is $4 corn,
$4.50 corn, versus rolling the dice on some kind of other
cellulosic-type product, it is going to be tough to get those
producers to switch. And so in our proposal we have a number of
options to provide incentives for those producers to actually
grow the crops that the plants will need.
Then the third component, which we regard as the key
component to this, is obviously these are new ventures. The
capital investments are large, so we have a very substantial
$2.1 billion loan guarantee program for the actual construction
of the plants themselves, which we believe will provide that
incentive in working with private capital markets to remove
some of that risk from them that the loan guarantee provides,
so that the construction of these plants can go forward.
So it is research, it is the producers, and then finally
the plant construction, and, again, there is a very substantial
investment in our proposal for that purpose. All mandatory
dollars, I might add, so that, as I noted earlier during one of
the Chairman's questions, this is not subject to some other
appropriations process or some limitation later on. These are
dollars that would be immediately available for that purpose.
Mrs. Gillibrand. Thank you for your time. I am very
grateful.
The Chairman. Thank you very much. I would now like to
recognize my good friend, the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr.
Davis, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Davis. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, and it is
certainly good to serve on this Subcommittee with you and see
you with the gavel. You and I came to the House in 2003, both
elected to Congress in 2002, and it is an honor to serve on
your Subcommittee and to be here today as this testimony is
being given.
Secretary Conner, I am pleased to see you here today as
well. When I look at the hearing, we are talking about
horticulture and organic agriculture. When I was a kid growing
up, we used a lot of that organic fertilizer from the barnyard
in much of our farming, so we understand the organic fertilizer
in rural Tennessee where I grew up. We had a fertilizer back
then that was 396. They called it Old Black Joe. It was
actually Armour fertilizer that produced that, and the 396, you
know what I am talking about when I talk about--or do you?
Mr. Conner. I don't. I don't.
Mr. Davis. And you are in Agriculture?
Mr. Conner. It wasn't an Indiana term, I guess.
Mr. Davis. It was basically 18 pounds of nutrients, 3
pounds of nitrogen, then you had phosphate and potassium, those
numbers identify what the ingredients are as far as the
nutrients that go, the rest of it is just filler. I will have
to teach you something about agriculture.
Thanks for being here. I represent a very rural area in
Tennessee. We have timber industry, with hardwoods and some
softwood. We have a lot of beef cattle and dairy cattle. We
have a lot of wineries, quite frankly. A lot of California wine
and New York wine or juice and Alabama juice comes to Tennessee
to make the wines, the farm wines that we have. I think it is
better than the other areas where you make it, but some of you
folks would disagree with that. But we also have soybeans and
cotton, and one of the areas that I represent has probably one
of the largest horticulture industries, the nursery industry,
in the world. It is kind of known in our area as being the most
dominant, and we ship a lot of products from outside of our
state to other parts of the nation. A real concern that we have
as we, as I look at this farm bill, is that when we start
looking at pests and invasive species, do you believe that when
it comes to specialty crops that there is, in this farm bill
that it adequately addresses funding levels as needed for
research and development to find new ways of protecting us from
the invasive species and from the pests?
Mr. Conner. I believe we have gone a long way towards
meeting that fundamental commitment, sir. As has been noted one
of the key parts of our research title is that we have
identified a billion dollars of mandatory money, not subject to
further action, to be made available for research on specialty
crops. It has been noted earlier in the hearing, in the area of
plant disease, pest protection is one of those areas where we
feel like our current dollars for specialty crop research are
not going far enough. So we see that as being a very targeted
use of the billion dollars of mandatory money that we are
making available to it. So, again, in this business you never
totally solve the problem, but we believe we have moved the
ball forward very substantially here with this commitment of
resources.
Mr. Davis. Okay. And stepping away from the farm bill for
just a moment, one of the major issues to the nursery producers
and the horticulturists in the district that I represent is the
fire ant that is rapidly moving northward. If you have a plant
that is in a 5 gallon or 10 gallon pot you can pretty well
control that. But if you are actually burlapping or balling the
trees, and if there is a fire ant located on one of those, and
you try to ship that across the state lines, you are in a heap
of trouble. Quite frankly, there may be an embargo placed on
your entire farm, and the entire area could get to the point
where they couldn't ship their product to other areas of the
state. There is a chemical called BioFriendTM.
Filosar or Telesar is the common name used for it. There are
some folks who feel like we need to start looking to the fast
tracking of chemicals to make those approved by USDA or FDA for
actual using them to maybe stamp out, eradicate, or control the
fire ants. Is that working adequately with the Department of
Agriculture? Do we need to introduce legislation, or are you
making rules that could make fast track become a possibility?
Mr. Conner. Well, in terms of fast tracking that approval,
I assume that that would probably occur under EPA jurisdiction,
the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, Rodenticide Act, which
would not be in the Department of Agriculture. But I will tell
you that we do work closely with EPA under that statute because
there are certain authorities that the state has to request
emergency approvals in the event that you have an outbreak of a
particular pest. We do a lot of the economic analysis data for
those approvals to show that it is indeed an emergency that is
costing the producers. That is a role we are going to continue
to play.
Mr. Davis. My time is up, but Triple 19 is one of the
better fertilizers. That is what my brother uses.
Mr. Conner. Is that right? I will remember that.
Mr. Davis. It makes it grow a whole lot better, but when we
first started, the fertilizer was actually 396. So you need to
go back.
Mr. Conner. 396.
Mr. Davis. If you are going to work in Agriculture, you
have to learn at least what we used to produce with. Thank you,
sir.
Mr. Conner. Thank you.
The Chairman. Mr. Davis, I was thinking that when you
mentioned 396, that might be the ear tag for old Bessie.
Mr. Davis. No, that would be, that would have been last
year she was born. She wouldn't have been Bessie. She is
probably hamburger by now if she was born then.
The Chairman. I want to thank the gentleman for his
questions. With regard to the fire ants, I just want to make
the Deputy Secretary aware that there is significant concern on
the Committee. Mr. Etheridge has asked me to look into that as
well. He is very concerned about some issues in his district.
There are other Members of the Committee, Mr. McIntire as well,
that are concerned. So we will be contacting the Department
further about the fire ant question.
Mr. Conner. Okay.
The Chairman. And how we can better deal with that
challenge in a number of states.
Let us start the second round of questioning now. I would
like to ask the Administration, as you mentioned in your
testimony, proposes to establish a new grant program that would
invest $20 million over 10 years to further focus resources on
addressing international sanitary and phytosanitary issues.
Mr. Conner. That's right.
The Chairman. Has USDA given significant thought to the
mechanics of this grant program, such as organizational
eligibility and where it might be located within USDA and how
it would be applied? I think there are some concerns.
Mr. Conner. We have not provided too much more detail or
gotten thought just in terms of the administering agency at
this point, Mr. Chairman. Again, it is our view that these
sanitary and phytosanitary rules are really, have been and are
going to continue to be what our foreign trading partners use
as the means to keep our product out. So, from our standpoint
it is going to require a lot of careful collaboration between
our Foreign Agricultural Service, which is going to be on the
front lines out there in terms of promoting the product,
dealing with the foreign government that may be imposing the
unfair restriction as well as our own Agricultural Marketing
Service. Then Agricultural Research Service in the event that
there is actual research being done will collect the data that
is necessary to show that our produce is safe for those foreign
countries to be purchasing. So, this is not one of those areas
that we see being under one particular jurisdiction, but it is
going to require a number of different mission areas within
USDA.
The Chairman. Well, I applaud USDA for putting the dollars
in. I think we are going to have some questions and further
input on how we locate this program and how we implement it. I
know Mr. Costa has raised questions about Japan precluding our
beef from being imported there. They have 10 times the amount
of issues that we do in VST and other things.
Mr. Conner. Yes.
The Chairman. I remember my opponent in my first electoral
campaign for the legislature nearly lost his farm while we were
running because he had a load of cherries that sat on the docks
in Japan. You don't need to hear too many of those cases of
people being totally wiped out with a perishable commodity to
know that we need to do something in this area. I applaud you
for your work. We just need to figure out how we could put the
money there. If we don't have the ability to act quickly when
we do have a farmer that has his crop on the docks in a foreign
country and not be able to get it through, we can spend all the
money in the world, and it won't have any positive effect.
Mr. Conner. We agree.
The Chairman. Thank you. You have also proposed increases
to funding the TASC Program, Technical Assistance for Specialty
Crops, and to create another grant program to address SPS
issues abroad. Beyond this the proposal does not address plant
pests in any other way. The SPS issues are more than just trade
issues. Several states have serious domestic pest emergencies.
Why did your farm bill proposal not address those issues more
specifically as a way to protect U.S. agriculture from pests?
Mr. Conner. Well, I think we do offer that protection, and
that occurs in a variety of those proposals, including the two
programs that you have identified in terms of sanitary and
phytosanitary requirements. I would point you, Mr. Chairman, to
a third proposal that we do discuss extensively as well, and
that is to increase our involvement with some of these
international standard-setting bodies, which we see as being
critical to the future of trade and dealing with a lot of these
sanitary and phytosanitary requirements. As you know, a number
of examples out there, beef being a pretty good one, where
there needs to be international standards by which those
participating and trading partners have agreed to live by those
standards. It is very relevant to the fruit and vegetable
industry in terms of a mitigation effort that we may take here
that meets international standards it is only as good as the
country you are trying to ship to acknowledging that that
particular mitigation does meet those standards. So we believe
we have to increase our role in that as well.
Obviously, the research side continues to be important, and
then dealing with those countries in terms of their own, what
could be erroneous, sanitary and phytosanitary requirements
that are keeping our product out. So I believe, we want to work
with you on this. If you have identified something we have
missed here, we will work closely with you on this. Our
intention is to make this a very aggressive sanitary and
phytosanitary push to make sure that our farmers are being
dealt with fairly.
The Chairman. Thank you. Since you mentioned it, your
Administration proposes to authorize and provide long-term
mandatory funding of $15 million over 10 years to increase the
U.S. presence in the international standard-setting bodies such
as the Codex Alimentarius and the International Plant
Protection Convention----
Mr. Conner. Right.
Mr. Cardoza.--and the World Health, World Animal Health
Organization. Does this funding level place us on par with our
trading partners, particularly the European Union, with regard
to resources devoted to participation in these international
bodies?
Mr. Conner. We believe that it does put us on par with
them, and it will provide us with the resources that we need to
be able to deal with those international bodies and provide the
technical personnel to work with those bodies. That will,
obviously, then work with our industries to make sure that we
are being treated fairly here. I am advised that the EU would
probably still be putting more resources in there than what we
would under our plan, but we believe that the technical
expertise that we would be able to offer with this additional
funding would be an important step in the right direction.
The Chairman. Thank you. Mr. Neugebauer, I turn it back
over to you for further questions.
Mr. Neugebauer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, I
am not a frequent flyer at the grocery store because generally
when I go to the grocery store, it takes me a long time to get
through the store and visit with constituents. I was recently
in some grocery stores, and I was noticing that a large amount
of shelf space is provided in the grocery stores for organic
foods. So it is obviously, it is a growing piece of the market
share.
I had some people in my office earlier today that were
talking about the standards that it takes, and I think Ranking
Member Goodlatte mentioned making sure that young farmers or
small producers, if they want to move into the organic
business, have the ability to do that. So I have a couple of
questions.
Mr. Conner. Sure.
Mr. Neugebauer. One of those is what are we doing as far as
enforcing standards so that somebody just doesn't decide one
day to just stamp organic on it, and second, one of the things
that individuals in my office said that it is a difficult
process to go through to get that. So are there things that the
Department is doing to help producers, if they want to get in
the organic business, navigate through this process? Do we have
uniform standards in place?
Mr. Conner. Those are good questions. I appreciate it. We
do play an active role in working with the producer because we,
as I noted in my opening statement, we acknowledge that the
organic certification process is difficult to navigate. It is
not an easy task for some small producer out there trying to
transition from conventional farming. It is the reason we have
proposed additional resources in the bill. We have expanded our
certification help to all 50 states under our proposal, and we
do increase the amount of money that we actually will
compensate the producers for in terms of his costs of getting
through this certification process, significantly under this
bill as well.
In terms of certification agents as well, Lloyd Day is with
me, who is an Administrator of our Agricultural Marketing
Service, and I will ask him to correct the record if I am
wrong, but I believe we do certify the, if you will, the
certification agents out there that are involved in enforcing
and making sure that when a product is labeled organic, it
meets the very rigorous standards that we have set in place. I
believe we have over 96 trained agents that are involved in
that certification and enforcement process, and we feel
confident that that is being adequately enforced at this point.
We are not seeking any change in statute or change in our
authorities there because we feel like that is being done and
the law is being enforced.
Mr. Neugebauer. Are there labeling standards that go along
with that regulation? In other words, is the consumer, is the
standard for labels consistent so that when a consumer looks at
a label, they understand organic, the difference between
organic and non-organic product?
Mr. Conner. Yes. Those certification requirements for
organic are standard requirements that are necessary in order
to have the USDA label that is on that product as being
certified organic.
Mr. Neugebauer. It is a standard label. Is that correct?
Mr. Conner. That is correct.
Mr. Neugebauer. I want to move to rural economic
development, particularly as we, since we are on specialty
crops, obviously in many of our districts rural economic
development is an integral part of keeping our regions vibrant.
As it relates to specialty crops, what value-added is, would
seem to be a very important piece of that, to be able to do the
value-added right in those particular regions rather than
having that processing done in other places? In your proposal
are there increases in value-added opportunities and grants for
specialty crops, and if so, what kinds of dollars are we
talking about?
Mr. Conner. I am not aware that we have any specific
dollars targeted toward, I guess what you are describing as
processing, value-added grants for potential processing
facilities that may be available out there.
I will tell you in general as you know in our rural
development title, I would steer you towards a number of
proposals that we do have under that title that I would put in
the category of improving greatly the quality of life in rural
America for those individuals that are specialty crop producers
or any others. I think there are a number of provisions in
there dealing with rural healthcare and the renovation of
emergency care facilities under that plan. We are proposing to
take over 1,270 rural hospitals, and make them full-fledged
rural emergency care facilities. Again, this will have a great
impact on the quality of life in those regions for all
producers, including the specialty crops producers. I am
advised as well that we do give priority to specialty crop
value-added grants in this proposal, and I believe that is
under our rural development title as well. So we will provide a
more detailed response, but there are some rural development
funds for value-added in that as well.
Mr. Neugebauer. Just a quick follow up, Mr. Chairman. In
your response if you have a granting side of it and also a
loaning side of it or something like that, that as it pertains
to opportunities of the types of facilities that would qualify
under your proposal or your plan, I would appreciate that
information as well.
Mr. Conner. And I would just point out, I think it was
noted earlier, Mr. Neugebauer, that in the energy title some of
our development money in that is specifically targeted at some
of the by-products associated with the specialty crop sector,
as well, to be converted into a cellulosic type ethanol. We
feel that that is going to be an important new market potential
for these products.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Neugebauer. I want to
particularly follow up on your line of questioning with regard
to the organics, because I am concerned, and I would like the
Deputy Secretary to respond back to the Committee. We are going
to follow up on this as well, with regard to foreign countries
who have agents that inspect them. I am not sure those agents
act as diligently as USDA does here in the United States, in my
mind, leading to unfair foreign competition, potentially. So we
are going to be talking about that, and I will be looking
forward to working with you on figuring out what the best
strategy is in order to make sure that American farmers have an
equal playing field in the international market in that area.
Mr. Mahoney.
Mr. Mahoney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to
follow up on something that the gentlewoman from New York was
talking about with regards to the section on cellulosic bio-
energy, and the proposal to ``Put a temporary program to
provide $100 million in direct support to producers of
cellulosic ethanol.'' Question, two questions: One is, how does
that level of funding compare to funding of the corn-based
ethanol production?
Mr. Conner. Well, as you know, this program began as a bio-
energy program that was specifically targeted for corn, in this
case buying the price of corn down to help make the ethanol
competitive. In our view----
Mr. Mahoney. And you were successful?
Mr. Conner. That has been a successful effort, and that has
been great for many rural areas of this country. Going forward,
though----
Mr. Mahoney. But not my area----
Mr. Conner.--as has been noted----
Mr. Mahoney.--in Florida which doesn't have corn.
Mr. Conner.--cellulosic ethanol we believe is where we need
to focus our attention as well as focus our resources, going
forward, because we have created a viable corn-based ethanol
industry. We do not see any of that money being used for corn
for that purpose. This would all be for cellulosic product, and
the corn industry is thriving and, going forward, doesn't need
this kind of help at this point. We need to do for cellulosic
what has happened for the corn sector as well.
Mr. Mahoney. The next question is, I wanted to understand
what the word temporary means, and was that a similar approach
that you did for corn-based----
Mr. Conner. Yes.
Mr. Mahoney. Is that a temporary program?
Mr. Conner. Again, like corn, this is not subsidies forever
in terms of buying the price down. We want the market to
determine this situation. This is kind of a head start, if you
will, and again, we expect, as did happen in corn, that
transition to where you would not need to be subsidizing the
feed stock for cellulosic ethanol in the future. So that is why
it is temporary.
Mr. Mahoney. Given the President's desire to increase the
amount of ethanol being used in energy as he stated in the
State of the Union address, have you looked at any actions or
activities that USDA could take that could spur the additional
investment in cellulosic ethanol when it comes to meeting the
goals outlined in the State of the Union address?
Mr. Conner. We have, Congressman, and let me just tell you.
We believe that the proposals contained in our farm bill
recommendations are critical to moving that ball forward and
meeting the very aggressive goals that the President has laid
out for bio-energy production in this country. Cellulosic has
to be a key part of that equation if we are to meet those
aggressive goals. As I pointed out in response to an earlier
question, we do quickly see three aspects of that; research to
develop the product, incentives for the producers to grow the
cellulosic material, and then, of course, you need the
incentive for the plant construction through the loan
guarantees. All three of those are key components to our energy
title and our recommendations.
Mr. Mahoney. Has your agency looked at potentially
mandating that a certain percentage of meeting the President's
goal come from certain sources of ethanol like cellulosic? If
not, why not?
Mr. Conner. No, we have not. This is an aggressive goal
that is going to take strong performance from all aspects of
the ethanol sector, if you will, whether corn-based or
cellulosic. We want to continue to encourage growth from the
corn-based sector. At the same time, though, we acknowledge
that to meet those targets cellulosic has to get a strong
foothold, and that is why we in our proposal, again, it is 100
percent focused on cellulosic ethanol.
Mr. Mahoney. Well, one of the things I would like you to
consider is that when you take a look at the reason why you
were so successful with corn-based ethanol was the fact that
not only did you provide research dollars, but you signaled to
private industry that there was going to be an opportunity for
investment. I would encourage you to go back and to look at how
we might be able to use increasing demand or increasing, I will
use the word quotas in terms of ethanol production, to do the
same thing for cellulosic. This way we can take the $1.6
billion that you are proposing and may be able to multiply that
by encouraging private investment to come into the industry as
we saw with corn-based ethanol.
Mr. Conner. I appreciate your point, Mr. Mahoney.
Mr. Mahoney. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Mahoney. You win the award
today of being the Member who stayed for the most questions
other than the Ranking Member and the Chairman. So I appreciate
that.
Mr. Mahoney. Well, Mr. Chairman, I got to tell you that
there is nothing more important to the citrus growers and
specialty crop producers in my district than what we are doing
here today.
The Chairman. Well, as Mr. Neugebauer was mentioning, we
have almonds here from California and Florida orange juice from
Mr. Mahoney's district. So we are happy to provide the snacks
today.
Mr. Mahoney. Being from California that was a big
concession, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that very much.
The Chairman. We don't have any oranges this year. They all
froze, I'm sorry to say. I have two more questions that I want
to mention, two more areas of concern. As I traveled among the
western states this past week, two issues were raised that were
of pretty serious concern among specialty crop growers. The
first one is the Administration's proposal on flex acres.
Mr. Conner. Right.
The Chairman. Would you like to address that? And well, let
us do that one at a time. Go ahead.
Mr. Conner. Well, again, I think, Mr. Chairman, as we have
noted we feel that it is just extremely important that we
address this issue of the WTO concerns that have been raised
about the flex acre planting restriction provisions in current
law. We have a very substantial direct payment program under
our commodity title. Under our plan those direct payments are
actually increased, again, pretty substantially to the tune of
$5.5 million. We want and we must have those payments be
considered a green box. If they are not, if that is called into
question in any way, we do have major WTO problems that I have
noted will have economic consequences for all of agriculture,
including the fruit and vegetable sector. So we feel it is just
paramount that we address those WTO concerns as part of this
package by working with you to get those flex acre planting
restrictions lifted.
The Chairman. As we move forward I think the Chairman of
the Full Committee has some concerns, and I do as well. We will
have to have further discussions on this topic, because I
recognize the Administration's concerns, and I also recognize
the farmer in the fields' concerns about the impact that this
could have. All of the marketing and all the other work that we
do could go for naught if there are too many acres planted in
some of these different commodities.
So the second question that I have, the other concern that
I repeatedly got this past week was of the programs, for
example, EQIP, too many farmers felt that the funds were hard
to access, that they had good proposals that just didn't fit
within parameters, or there was a significant amount of
frustration with red tape or with access ability to these
programs on the individual farmer level. So I just share that.
I don't know if you have a response, but how to make government
more user friendly to those who are paying the bills, our
taxpaying citizens, is something that I am concerned about.
Mr. Conner. Absolutely. I share that point. Let me just say
in our travels, Mr. Chairman, we did find a lot of strong
support for EQIP out there.
The Chairman. Oh, you are absolutely right. There is a lot
of support for it.
Mr. Conner. Yes. EQIP is a program where it is very heavily
dependent upon your interaction with your local NRCS office,
and that may be the source of some of the isolated concerns.
Again, nationally speaking we got very favorable comments about
the program from the producers. We are always willing to work
with you and deal with what, hopefully is in that case, may be
some isolated circumstances where there might a disconnect
between the, our local agent perhaps, and the producer. But we
want all these guys to have full access to what is, I believe,
a very popular program out there and obviously, one that we are
proposing to be even more important to the producers in the
future.
The Chairman. Absolutely. I applaud expansion of the
program, and we just have to make sure that it works for all
different segments of agriculture.
Mr. Conner. Yes. Absolutely.
The Chairman. It was interesting as I went around the
different states, it was different, dairy seemed to be very
happy with it, but some other folks just didn't feel like their
programs fit into the little boxes, either by USDA or the local
challenge that they were under.
Mr. Conner. Well, we always will work with you to address
those.
The Chairman. Thank you very much. Deputy Secretary Conner,
thank you for taking your time. I am going to turn it over for
a closing statement from Ranking Member Neugebauer.
Mr. Neugebauer. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank
you, Secretary Conner, for coming over. I felt that this was
very informative. As the Administration has made some
additional new commitments to this important area in
agriculture, I will look forward, along with the Chairman, to
working with you as we put together a farm bill that is broad
in coverage, that makes sure that everybody involved in
American agriculture feels that this Congress supports them. I
look forward to working with you and the Chairman as we set
about that process. Thanks again for your comments.
Mr. Conner. Thank you very much.
The Chairman. I thank the Ranking Member. Thank you very
much, sir, for your taking the time out of your busy schedule
to spend additional time with us today, walking us through the
Administration's proposal. I think we have accomplished a great
deal here today, and this exercise will give the Members of
this Subcommittee a foundation to be able to work on the farm
bill process, as we move forward. Having open and frank
conversations like we did today allows us to certainly pave a
way for greater collaboration down the road, and I applaud
that. I am deeply committed to insuring that this Subcommittee
writes a responsible, equitable, and innovative component to
the farm bill for specialty crops and organics, and your
presence here was a tremendous step in the right direction on
that.
Under the rules of the Committee the record of today's
hearing will remain open for 10 days to receive additional
material and supplemental written responses from the witness to
any question posed by a Member of the panel. This hearing of
the Subcommittee on Horticulture and Organic Agriculture is
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:01 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
Submitted Questions *
Questions submitted by Committee on Agriculture Majority Staff
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* At the time this hearing went to press the responses were not
submitted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 32
Question 1. Considering the authority to use Section 32 funds for
export subsidy have not been used in over 100 years, is there benefit
to maintaining this authority?
Question 2. What activities have been funded under the authority to
provide direct payments to growers to ``restore purchasing power?''
What commodities have benefited?
Question 3. It is our understanding that Section 32 fund year end
un-obligated balances roughly average $150-$200 million annually. It is
our understanding also that under the Department's planned increase in
Section 32 purchases of $2.75 billion over 10 years transfers to Food
and Nutrition Service's Child Nutrition Programs would be reduced by an
identical amount. How will specific nutrition programs be impacted by
this action?
Organic Agriculture
Question 4. Current USDA-REE agency resources applied specifically
to organic agriculture total about $12 million annually or
approximately 0.6% of total agricultural research. U.S. organic
consumer demand continues to double every 3-4 years and total organic
market share is expected to exceed 10% by FY 2012. Does the
Administration's proposal on organic research add an additional $10
million to the existing $12 million in USDA-REE programs associated
with organic agriculture? What is the Department's long-term strategy
to address the growing research needs of the organic sector and the
current inequitable distribution of research funds?
Question 5. What research and extension priorities or trends have
emerged or been identified from the Integrated Organic Research Program
at CSREES?
Question 6. Minnesota and other states have used EQIP funding to
cost share transitions to organic production. This innovative approach
has resulted in many stories of producers successfully transitioning to
organic production. Is there any consideration within USDA in having
NRCS make a national commitment to use EQIP funds for organic
transition?
Question 7. Organic consumers must have confidence in the organic
brand, in general and USDA certification in particular in order for
organic products to maintain their premium value. Over the past few
months we have seen news articles assert that USDA has little idea of
the number of violations associated with non-compliance of its organic
regulations. Please describe the process used by USDA to identify and
document violations including time-frames for correction. Has USDA
performed any internal assessment of violations such as numbers and
trends associated with specific producers, handlers, regions or foreign
countries?
Question 8. A uniform understanding of the NOP regulations among
accredited agents worldwide is critical in ensuring a consistent level
of regulatory compliance. Please describe USDA's current effort in
post-accreditation training of certification agents?
Question 9. Many Federal programs have adopted procedures for
issuing guidance as to how their respective regulations are to be
interpreted. These procedures usually contain an opportunity for public
comment to ensure the guidance language is clear and widely understood.
Does the NOP have formal or informal procedures for issuing guidance to
its accredited certification agents? Please respond on how well these
procedures are working?
Question 10. Organic farmers in this country are at full capacity
in supplying organic food, so retailers are sourcing supplies from
foreign countries. More and more products are being imported from
countries such as China. Please describe the oversight process used by
USDA to assure that imported organic products are produced and handled
in accordance with USDA standards.
Questions submitted by Committee on Agriculture Minority Staff
Trade
Question 1. I notice you are gradually increasing the funding for
the Technical Assistance for Specialty Crops (TASC) program. What is
the total dollar amount of applications currently being received by the
Department for TASC?
Question 2. The Department's proposal provides funding to increase
the U.S. presence in international-standard setting bodies, and I was
hoping you could tell me exactly how this funding will be used and how
it will help specialty crop producers?
Question 3. I know the Market Access Program (MAP) is an important
program for specialty crop producers but as you know, MAP is a valuable
program for other agriculture commodities. Can you tell us what
percentage of MAP funds currently assists the specialty crop industry
in promoting their products overseas?
Planting Prohibition
Question 4. Your testimony states that a USDA/ERS study finds that
new entrants to the specialty crop business will be relatively few in
number. However another recent study finds that the costs to the
industry will be nearly $4 billion. That seems to be a serious impact
that should be considered. Can you comment on how these two studies
found vastly different results?
Conservation
Question 5. The Department's proposal calls for an increase in
conservation spending including the creation of a new ``Conservation
Enhanced Payment Option.'' I think this proposal sounds very
interesting. However, I am concerned that specialty crop growers may
not have the option of participating in this program. I wonder whether
you would consider structuring the program in such a way that non
program crop growers could also qualify?
Question 6. The 2002 Farm Bill included language in the
Conservation Security Program (CSP) directing that funds may be used to
help producers with air quality, pest management, and invasive species.
As you know, for producers to participate in the CSP, they must be in
select watersheds designated by NRCS. Are the needs of specialty crop
producers being met with limited enrollment to watersheds?
Rural Development
Question 7. The Value-Added Grant Program has been quite popular
among producers and in rural communities, and I see the Department
proposes giving a priority to specialty crop-related applications.
Under the current grant program, what percentage of funds has been
awarded to specialty crop projects?
Questions submitted by the Honorable Lincoln Davis, Member of Congress
from Tennessee
Question 1. How does the USDA's farm bill proposal address the
threat of pests to specialty crops? Are there specific programs, either
in existence, or proposed, to deal with the eradication of pests
currently threatening specialty crop farms (not including research
proposals)?
Question 2. Does the Secretary currently have enough authority to
access necessary CCC (Commodity Credit Corporation) funds to deal with
emergency pest eradication?
Question 3. Did the Secretary consult with the Administration in
the creation of this farm bill proposal on the creation of a permanent,
mandatory fund to deal with pest eradication that could deal with
outbreaks and compensate growers who suffer great losses in times of
emergency? Would such a fund be helpful?
Question 4. Mr. Conner can you please describe the Specialty Crop
Research Initiative? How would it work? Who is eligible? What kind of
research would be allowed?
Question 5. Mr. Conner in your written testimony you mention the
risks involved in specialty crop production. Does the current crop
insurance program adequately address these risks? Can you briefly
describe the proposed changes?
Question 6. Can you explain in a little detail how the Private
Lands Protection Program would work?
Questions submitted by the Honorable Tim Mahoney, Member of Congress
from Florida
Disaster Assistance for Specialty Crop Producers
Question 1. As you know, Florida farmers and ranchers have been hit
hard in the last 3 years due to the 2004 and 2005 hurricanes. We are
grateful for the resources that USDA and Congress provided to Florida
producers during that time, however we found that many of the existing
disaster assistance programs offered by USDA are of little benefit to
specialty crop growers, who have higher input and labor costs than
traditional program crop producers, either due to payment limits or
adjusted gross income limitation associated with these programs.
What provisions are included in USDA's farm bill proposal to insure
equitable disaster assistance availability to specialty crop producers
given that many of these commodities are not eligible for crop
insurance such as the Non-insured Assistance Program (NAP) either
because of the uniqueness of crops they grow or because of the gross
income levels of the producers of these highly valuable crops?
Plant Pest and Disease Compensation
Question 2. The Animal Health Protection Act requires the Secretary
to compensate livestock producers for animals that are ordered
destroyed to contain an animal disease outbreak. The Plant Protection
Act provides the Secretary with compensation authority for plants but
does not specifically direct he/she to do so. When compensation has
been provided for plant pests/diseases, the funding has come from
Section 32.
Given that Section 32 is the primary funding mechanism by which
USDA purchases fresh fruits/vegetables for feeding programs, is there
anything in USDA's farm bill proposal that would allow for plant pest/
disease compensation without utilizing Section 32 funding? If not, does
USDA intend to continue providing compensation to affected producers
out of Section 32 funds which may impact future fresh fruit/vegetable
purchases as envisioned by USDA's farm bill proposal?
Specialty Crop Block Grants
Question 3. Deputy Secretary Conner stated in his testimony to the
Subcommittee that USDA did not have a problem with the Specialty Crop
Block Grant program and is moving forward in awarding the block grants
as appropriated in FY 2006. If that is the case, why specifically were
the block grants not included in USDA's farm bill proposal?
Questions submitted by the Honorable Dennis A. Cardoza, Member of
Congress from California; on behalf of the Honorable Lynn C.
Woolsey, Member of Congress from California
Question 1. In 7 C.F.R. part 205.508, the USDA regulations
stipulate that site evaluations of USDA-accredited certifiers of
organic products must be conducted several times between the time of
initial accreditation and when they apply for renewal of their
accreditation. How often have the site evaluations been performed for
both domestic and foreign certifying agents?
Question 2. 7 C.F.R. states that ``Site evaluations [of accredited
certifying agents] shall include an on-site review of the certification
agent's certification procedures, decisions, facilities,
administrative, and production and handling operations certified by the
certifying agent'' (emphasis added). I understand that visiting a
representative sample of USDA-certified organic farms overseas many
times requires diplomacy and delicacy in approaching foreign
governments, and that the logistics of traveling overseas poses
problems of its own--but I remained concerned that USDA officials have
still not conducted on-site review of foreign farms in each country
from which we import USDA-certified organic products. Please provide
the name of the specific foreign countries where USDA has performed on-
site review of production and handling operations and the number of
site visits performed within each country.
Questions submitted by the Honorable John R. ``Randy'' Kuhl, Jr.,
Member of Congress from New York
Question 1. I noticed with interest that you farm bill proposal
includes several provisions for specialty crops. We grow a number of
them in New York. We held a field hearing last summer in my district,
and I think that many of my colleagues were surprised to learn that New
York has agriculture.
What I heard during that hearing from your specialty crop growers
is that they face challenges like never before. From sky rocketing land
costs to a near agriculture trade deficit, ever-increasing regulations
and labor shortages, it is a new era and if we are to retain our
domestic specialty crop industry we need to invest more money in
programs designated to help them stay competitive. That is why last
session I cosponsored H.R. 6193--The EAT Health America Act, and we are
getting ready to reintroduce that bill very soon.
Your proposal represents a step in the right direction,
particularly the emphasis on research. However, there were some
programs, that were missing, programs that I have heard a lot about
from my growers. Specifically:
Your proposal would increase funding by $50 million annually for
schools to purchase fruits and vegetables. In announcing your farm bill
proposal, you suggested that schools would have the option to choose
whether to use these funds from among the fruit and vegetable snack
program or school meal programs. However, your actual proposal appears
to exclude the snack program. I hope it would be included. Can you
please clarify your proposed use of this $50 million?
Question 2. Your proposal does not include any funding for the
Specialty Crop Block Grant Program. The block grant program, authorized
under the Specialty Crop Competitiveness Act, provides funding to the
states departments of agriculture to be used by grower groups and
specialty crop producers for programs that enhance competitiveness.
In FY06, this program received $7 million in appropriations, or
just over $100,000 for New York. Given our current budget constraints
it is not realistic to expect a program like this to depend on the
appropriations process each year. This is the kind of program that out
to receive mandatory funding (for stability and continuity) under the
farm bill. This program recognizes the diversity of specialty crops
from state to state, offering maximum flexibility for projects that
support research, promotion, exports, consumer health, and food safety.
Could you please explain why the Administration chose not to provide
mandatory funding for this program?