[Senate Hearing 112-286]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 112-286
OPPORTUNITIES FOR SPECIALTY CROPS
AND ORGANICS IN THE FARM BILL
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE,
NUTRITION AND FORESTRY
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JULY 28, 2011
__________
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov/
_____
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
71-635 PDF WASHINGTON : 2012
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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, NUTRITION AND FORESTRY
DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan, Chairwoman
PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont PAT ROBERTS, Kansas
TOM HARKIN, Iowa RICHARD G. LUGAR, Indiana
KENT CONRAD, North Dakota THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi
MAX BAUCUS, Montana MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky
E. BENJAMIN NELSON, Nebraska SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia
SHERROD BROWN, Ohio MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska
ROBERT P. CASEY, Jr., Pennsylvania JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa
MICHAEL BENNET, Colorado JOHN THUNE, South Dakota
KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota
Christopher J. Adamo, Majority Staff Director
Jonathan W. Coppess, Majority Chief Counsel
Jessica L. Williams, Chief Clerk
Michael J. Seyfert, Minority Staff Director
Anne C. Hazlett, Minority Chief Counsel
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing(s):
Opportunities for Specialty Crops and Organics in the Farm Bill.. 1
----------
Thursday, July 28, 2011
STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY SENATORS
Stabenow, Hon. Debbie, U.S. Senator from the State of Michigan,
Chairwoman, Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry... 1
Roberts, Hon. Pat, U.S. Senator from the State of Kansas......... 2
Panel I
Woteki, Catherine, Ph.D., Undersecretary of Research, Education
and Economics, USDA, Washington, DC............................ 5
Wright, Ann, Deputy Undersecretary, Marketing and Regulatory
Programs, USDA, Washington, DC................................. 3
Panel II
Abbett, Glenn, Manager, Abbett Farms, LLC, LaCrosse, Indiana..... 25
Bencal, Paul, Owner, Paul Bencal Farm, Ransomville, New York..... 22
Engelhard, Dennis, Owner, Engelhard Family Farms, Unionville,
Michigan....................................................... 18
Tait, Kim, Owner, Tait Farm Foods, Inc., Centre Hall,
Pennsylvania................................................... 20
Wingard, Charles, Director of Field Operations, W.P. Rawls and
Sons, Pelion, South Carolina................................... 27
Woolley, Robert, Owner, Dave Wilson Nursery, Hickman, California. 24
----------
APPENDIX
Prepared Statements:
Thune, Hon. John............................................. 40
Abbett, Glenn................................................ 42
Bencal, Paul................................................. 52
Engelhard, Dennis............................................ 58
Tait, Kim.................................................... 62
Wingard, Charles............................................. 65
Woolley, Robert.............................................. 74
Woteki, Catherine............................................ 80
Wright, Ann.................................................. 88
Question and Answer:
Stabenow, Hon. Debbie:
Written questions to Ann Wright.............................. 131
Written questions to Catherine Woteki........................ 119
Written questions to Dennis Engelhard........................ 106
Written questions to Kim Tait................................ 108
Written questions to Paul Bencal............................. 102
Written questions to Robert Woolley.......................... 115
Written questions to Glenn Abbett............................ 98
Written questions to Charles Wingard......................... 111
Hon. Pat Roberts:
Written questions to Ann Wright.............................. 139
Written questions to Catherine Woteki........................ 122
Written questions to Dennis Engelhard........................ 106
Written questions to Kim Tait................................ 109
Written questions to Paul Bencal............................. 103
Written questions to Robert Woolley.......................... 117
Written questions to Glenn Abbett............................ 98
Written questions to Charles Wingard......................... 112
Hon. Kirsten Gillibrand:
Written questions to Catherine Woteki........................ 125
Hon. Richard G. Lugar:
Written questions to Ann Wright.............................. 144
Written questions to Catherine Woteki........................ 127
Hon. John Thune:
Written questions to Ann Wright.............................. 145
Written questions to Catherine Woteki........................ 128
Written questions to Dennis Engelhard........................ 106
Written questions to Kim Tait................................ 110
Written questions to Paul Bencal............................. 103
Written questions to Robert Woolley.......................... 117
Written questions to Glenn Abbett............................ 99
Written questions to Charles Wingard......................... 113
Abbett, Glenn:
Written response to questions from Hon. Debbie Stabenow...... 98
Written response to questions from Hon. Pat Roberts.......... 98
Written response to questions from Hon. John Thune........... 99
Bencal, Paul:
Written response to questions from Hon. Debbie Stabenow...... 102
Written response to questions from Hon. Pat Roberts.......... 103
Written response to questions from Hon. John Thune........... 103
Engelhard, Dennis:
Written response to questions from Hon. Debbie Stabenow...... 106
Written response to questions from Hon. Pat Roberts.......... 106
Written response to questions from Hon. John Thune........... 106
Tait, Kim:
Written response to questions from Hon. Debbie Stabenow...... 108
Written response to questions from Hon. Pat Roberts.......... 109
Written response to questions from Hon. John Thune........... 110
Wingard, Charles:
Written response to questions from Hon. Debbie Stabenow...... 111
Written response to questions from Hon. Pat Roberts.......... 112
Written response to questions from Hon. John Thune........... 113
Woolley, Robert:
Written response to questions from Hon. Debbie Stabenow...... 115
Written response to questions from Hon. Pat Roberts.......... 117
Written response to questions from Hon. John Thune........... 117
Woteki, Catherine:
Written response to questions from Hon. Debbie Stabenow...... 119
Written response to questions from Hon. Pat Roberts.......... 122
Written response to questions from Hon. Kirsten Gillibrand... 125
Written response to questions from Hon. Richard G. Lugar..... 127
Written response to questions from Hon. John Thune........... 128
Wright, Ann:
Written response to questions from Hon. Debbie Stabenow...... 131
Written response to questions from Hon. Pat Roberts.......... 139
Written response to questions from Hon. Richard G. Lugar..... 144
Written response to questions from Hon. John Thune........... 145
OPPORTUNITIES FOR SPECIALTY CROPS
AND ORGANICS IN THE FARM BILL
Thursday, July 28, 2011
United States Senate,
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry
Washington, DC
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:08 a.m., in
Room G50, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Debbie Stabenow,
chairwoman of the Committee, presiding.
Present: Senators Stabenow, Casey, Klobuchar, Bennet,
Gillibrand, Roberts, Lugar, Johanns, Boozman and Grassley.
HON. DEBBIE STABENOW, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
CHAIRWOMAN, COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION AND FORESTRY
Chairwoman Stabenow. Good morning again. We are very
pleased to be here today for the second portion of our hearing
to focus on the status of specialty crops and the organic
industries. In the 2008 Farm Bill, we made great strides in
recognizing specialty crops and organic growers as important
partners and contributors to a vibrant American agricultural
economy.
Through our efforts, we were able to establish the
horticulture and organics title for the first time ever to
support specialty crop growers, helping them with pest and
disease prevention, organic research and trade assistance for
growers hurt by new trade agreements, something critically
important for asparagus growers in Michigan.
It is amazing to think that it took until 2008 for fruits,
vegetables, nursery products, flora culture to actually have a
specific formal role in the Farm Bill, but that is now the
case. I am proud to say these important crops are a part of the
Farm Bill discussions and their place in the Farm Bill is here
to stay.
Specialty crop and organic growers are not only helping to
supply healthy products to our schools, our families, our
communities, but these farmers are also making a major
contribution to the American economy. Sales of U.S. specialty
crops top $65 billion annually with nearly 2 billion of those
sales coming from Michigan alone.
Organic sales also contribute to an overgrowing--reaching
nearly 29 billion in 2010 and many new and beginning farmers
are seeking out opportunities both in specialty crops and
organic sectors, proving how crucial these efforts are to
encouraging young farmers to begin farming.
As our panelists will tell us, producing specialty crops
continues to be a risky business. New and emerging pests and
diseases continue to threaten the productivity of our farmers
throughout the country and high input costs often mean tight
margins and loaded resources. Specialty crop efforts that have
been very successful have been the Specialty Crop Block Grants,
the Specialty Crop Research Initiative. I know they have been
critical in helping producers manage their risks and expanding
opportunities as well.
As the second most diverse agricultural state in the
country, Michigan has some great stories to tell and I am very
pleased that Mr. Dennis Engelhard is here today to share some
of the challenges facing specialty crop growers in my state, as
well as his experience working to improve dry bean varieties
and provide new market opportunities that address America's
nutritional needs.
In addition to Mr. Engelhard, we have a very diverse group
of producers from nearly every region of the country, I think,
and every kind of operation and size this morning. We are also
about to hear from two key officials from the Department of
Agriculture who oversee the research, the marketing, pest and
disease initiatives, as well as the National Organic Program.
I would like now to turn the podium over to my good friend
and ranking member, Senator Roberts. And I know that although
Kansas is not generally thought of as a specialty crops state,
I recently learned that the State has quite a surge in farmer's
markets and I know you do have specialty crops and I know that
you are very involved in promoting the Farmer's Market
Promotion Program, as well as all the other diversity of crops
in Kansas.
And I might say as an aside, I am looking forward in the
next month and coming as we do our second field hearing to have
the opportunity to be in Kansas and see firsthand.
STATEMENT OF HON. PAT ROBERTS, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF
KANSAS
Senator Roberts. Madam Chairwoman, thank you for holding
this hearing. Thank you for the opportunity to go to Michigan
on our first hearing and learn firsthand for so many specialty
crop growers just how important this whole endeavor is, not
only to Michigan, but all over the country.
We have been exploring Section 10 and I have been learning
from staff just how important the program is to Kansas. As a
matter of fact, I have a question of the witnesses to explain
that. People think of Kansas as a model agricultural state,
i.e., we are a lot more involved in a lot of other things.
So I just appreciate your holding this hearing. I am
looking forward to hearing the witnesses. Since I obviously
held up the hearing, I think we better get to them and I have
some questions for them. But thank you so much for holding this
hearing.
Chairwoman Stabenow. As I said, we are very pleased to have
two excellent panelists with us. Yes. Yes, Senator Lugar?
Senator Lugar. May I take this opportunity, to offer an
introduction also to one of our witnesses?
Chairwoman Stabenow. Absolutely. Please do.
Senator Lugar. On the second panel, we will hear from Glenn
Abbett, who is a second generation farmer from LaCrosse,
Indiana. Glenn was born and raised in LaPorte County by his
parents, Lou and Joan Abbett. Early on he knew he wanted to
follow in his dad's footsteps and be a farmer, so he worked on
the family farm while going to school.
And after graduating from Purdue University with a degree
in mechanical engineering, he joined his dad on the family
farm. In the late 1990s, Glenn became the primary manager of
the business and the Abbett family now farms 4,300 acres of
commercial corn, seed corn, processed tomatoes, soybeans,
processed green beans and wheat. Roughly 650 of those acres are
processed tomatoes.
Glenn and his dad have been growing tomatoes for Red Gold,
Inc. for approximately 20 years. As a grower, Glenn has won
many awards, including a prestigious Master Grower Award four
times, which honors outstanding quality professionalism and
industry leadership. Most recently, in 2009, Glenn won the Red
Gold Stewardship award which recognized the grower who
demonstrated exemplary leadership to maximize the potential of
Indiana's agricultural industry.
He has been married 16 years to Leslie. They have four
children, one of whom traveled with him to be here today.
Welcome Casey, the son. All of Glenn's children help on the
farm in one way or another when they can. Glenn, like his
father before him, has dedicated his life to farming and it is
Glenn's greatest desire that one of his children will take over
in the future. We are delighted to have Glenn and his son here
with us today.
Chairwoman Stabenow. Thank you so much. We are very much
looking forward to his sharing his testimony with us.
We will proceed now and welcome our two witnesses, and of
course, we know you understand we will be happy to take
whatever you have in writing and ask that you keep your
comments to five minutes in terms of verbal comments so we have
an opportunity for questions.
Let me first welcome our first panelists, Ms. Ann Wright,
who is the deputy undersecretary for marketing and regulatory
programs at USDA. Prior to her appointment, she served as the
senior policy advisor to Majority Leader Harry Reid on
agriculture issues. She has also held a position as a policy
analyst for the Consumer's Union and has worked with farmers
and non-profit organizations at the National Sustainable
Agricultural Coalition.
So we welcome you, and also Dr. Woteki, Catherine Woteki.
Dr. Woteki is the undersecretary for research, education and
economics at the USDA. Prior to her appointment, Dr. Woteki
served as global director of scientific affairs for Mars,
Incorporated, where she managed the company's scientific policy
and research on matters of health, nutrition and food safety.
She also held several positions as dean of agriculture at Iowa
State University and undersecretary for food safety at the
USDA, deputy associate director for science and technology at
the White House, and chair of the Food and Nutrition Board.
And so we welcome both of you and we would ask Ms. Wright
to proceed with your testimony.
STATEMENT OF ANN WRIGHT, DEPUTY UNDERSECRETARY, MARKETING AND
REGULATORY PROGRAMS, USDA
Ms. Wright. Thank you. Chairman Stabenow, Ranking Member
Roberts and members of the Committee, thank you for inviting me
to appear before you today to provide an update on the work
undertaken by USDA on Title X of the 2008 Farm Bill. My name is
Ann Wright and I serve as deputy undersecretary for Marketing
and Regulatory Programs at USDA. MRP's Agricultural Marketing
Service and the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service are
the primary agencies with responsibility for implementing Title
X.
The overall farm economy continues to remain strong with
U.S. agricultural exports, farm cash receipts and net farm
income projected at or above previous record levels in 2011,
with a crop value of roughly $57 billion. Specialty crops play
an important role in contributing to the country's robust
agricultural economy.
As for the organic industry, they are viewed as the fastest
growing sector of agriculture. According to industry
statistics, U.S. sales of organic food and beverages have grown
from $1 billion in 1990 to an estimated 26.7 billion in 2010.
Title X of the 2008 Farm Bill represented the first time
that a Farm Bill title was devoted exclusively to addressing
the needs of specialty crop and organic growers. Knowing how
important these programs are to the vitality of the industry at
large, we have worked to make delivery of these programs a
success. The Agricultural Marketing Service administers two
important Title X grant programs, the Specialty Crop Block
Grant Program and the Farmer's Market Promotion Program.
The Specialty Crop Block Grant Program enhances the
competitiveness of the specialty crop industry, including
horticulture, through tailored projects that address state
needs and priorities. Much of the program's success and
importance is based on the fact that states and their growers
can define and address priorities and respond to emerging
issues and opportunities in a timely way.
For example, the State of Michigan recently used block
grant funds to increase participation of grape growers in the
state's successful Michigan Agriculture Environmental Assurance
Program. In Montana, the State is using block grant funds to
develop a more economical method of potato production.
While projects differ from state to state, they share the
same goal of increasing the success of the specialty crop
industry, keeping farmers farming and rural communities
thriving. The other important AMS grant program in Title X is
the Farmer's Market Promotion Program. This program improves
and expands direct marketing opportunities for growers, such as
Farmer's Markets, community-supported agriculture programs and
agri-tourism activities. The program is funded at $10 million
in Fiscal Year 2011 and 2012.
AMS administers the National Organic Program. For this
fiscal year, the NOP is funded at $6.9 million. Reauthorized in
Title X of the Farm Bill, the National Organic Certification
Cost Share Program makes funds available to organic producers
and handlers to help cover or defray the cost of certification.
Organic certification is an annual and sometimes costly process
which can create barriers for entry for small and mid-sized
farmers and ranchers.
Through the cost-share program, Congress has recognized the
opportunity to support beginning, small and mid-sized producers
who make up a significant percentage of this growing industry.
AMS plays a critical role in administering Section 32 funds
which are used to purchase non-price-supported surplus
commodities for distribution to federal nutrition programs.
Annually we purchase approximately $1 billion in
commodities for distribution to various nutrition assistance
programs such as our National School Lunch Program, food banks
and soup kitchens.
The 2008 Farm Bill directed USDA to nearly double the
Section 32 specialty crop purchases required in the 2002 Farm
Bill and in 2011, AMS plans to purchase over $400 million. The
2008 Farm Bill gave APHIS two additional tools to protect
agriculture and specialty crops. Both programs, the Plant Pest
and Disease Management and Disaster Prevention Program and the
National Clean Plant Network, have proven to be highly
effective and widely supported by stakeholders and industry.
Through the Plant Pest and Disease Management and Disaster
Prevention Program, or Section 10201, APHIS has partnered with
numerous states, tribes, universities and other communities to
strengthen and expand the scope of APHIS' pest and disease
prevention activities. While many see pests as just that,
pests, to America's specialty crop growers they can mean
serious business disruptions.
For example, if left undetected, the discovery of a plant
pest or its vector on a wine grape orchard in New York or a
citrus grove in Texas can escalate into a domestic and
international quarantine, loss of market opportunities and
costly mitigation and eradication interventions.
Section 10201 allows APHIS to address emerging pest and
disease outbreaks in those critical early states, hopefully
resulting in far less economic impact to growers and
communities who depend on them.
The second Farm Bill program, the National Clean Plant
Network, develops and produces clean propagative plant material
so that should plant pest or disease strike, clean plant
material is available to states, private nurseries and
producers. Essentially it is an insurance policy that
guarantees that there will be a fresh stock of disease-free
plants.
AMS and APHIS undertake numerous activities to facilitate
the competitive and efficient marketing of U.S. agricultural
products, as well as to protect and safeguard critical sectors
of U.S. agriculture. I hope that this testimony and the
subsequent question and answers will prove useful to the
Subcommittee as you undertake your work on the next Farm Bill.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Wright can be found on page
88 in the appendix.]
Chairwoman Stabenow. Thank you very much. Dr. Woteki.
STATEMENT OF CATHERINE WOTEKI, UNDERSECRETARY OF RESEARCH,
EDUCATION AND ECONOMICS, USDA
Ms. Woteki. Good morning Chairwoman Stabenow, Senator
Roberts, Senator Lugar, Senator Johanns. It is a real pleasure
to be testifying before you today about some of the recent
advances in specialty crops research, as well as our research,
education and extension activities that relate to organic
farmers as well. I have a longer written testimony that I have
submitted for the record and I will be summarizing those
comments.
As you already made reference to Chairwoman Stabenow, in
your opening remarks, the Specialty Crops Competitive Act
provided us with a definition of specialty crops and the 2008
Farm Bill provided some new and very important provisions, not
only in Title X that my colleague has been describing, but also
in Title VII, the research title for which I have
responsibility for implementation. In that title we created the
National Institute of Food and Agriculture, as well as
additional programs that support specialty crops and organics
through research, education and extension.
The approach that we have taken for specialty crops and
organic agriculture actually go beyond the very specific
provisions that relate to specialty crops. We have taken a
multi-agency, multi-disciplinary approach that involves all of
the four agencies in the research, education and economics
mission area. And as you pointed out, specialty crops and
organic agriculture are very important. The 2007 census of
agriculture valued specialty crops at $67.4 billion. And while
they only represented 12.7 percent of harvested crop acreage in
2007, they were almost 47 percent of U.S. crop value and
employed nearly 1.4 million people.
So another interesting development out of the census of
agriculture was the finding that beginning farmers are more
likely to be involved in specialty crop production and we are
also aware that the largest segment of the emerging organic
agriculture sector is in specialty crops.
The 2008--I am sorry, the 2004 Specialty Crops Act also
established a subcommittee within the National Agriculture
Research, Education, Extension and Economics Advisory Board
that has recently held hearings in Michigan just the last week
and heard from representatives of Michigan specialty crop
industry. The committee is now working to compile its findings
and I am awaiting their report and that will also be provided
to the Committee.
I would like to just briefly now highlight some of the
findings that are described in greater detail in the written
testimony, but with respect to the research programs that we
support in the university community, the Specialty Crop
Research Initiative has in the 2008 Farm Bill been authorized
at $230 million for five years, from 2008 to 2012, and it is
dedicated to developing and disseminating science-based tools
and technology. Even though the research projects that are
funded under this have not yet reached completion, growers and
consumers are already benefitting from this investment.
And just two brief examples. Water availability, it is
really critical for agricultural use and one project in
California has the potential to reduce water in grape
production by a range of 150 to over 300 billion gallons a
year. This amount of water would be the daily household water
needs of over six million Americans for an entire year, so very
major savings.
Second example is in the tree fruit crops. Harvesting
accounts for about half of production costs and one of the
grants developed an augmented harvesting system for apples that
is also applicable for peaches, apricots and nectarines. It has
been developed. It is now in the commercial testing phase and
that full-scale field experiment is now in progress and
expected to demonstrate at least a 25 percent increase in
worker productivity and reduction in fruit bruising and leading
to increased quality.
NIFA also offers the Organic Agriculture Research and
Extension Initiative, specifically supporting organic
agriculture through the integration of research and extension
activities. These grants programs for this year are currently
under review and the program is expected to fund $19 million in
this year.
Our Intramural Research Programs reflect a long-term
investment. For example, the Agriculture Research Service
support specialty crops through its critical germplasm
collections. These are resources for crop breeders. The
statistics agencies, the Economics Research Service and the
National Agricultural Statistics Service, provide very
important data and analyses that are also important for the
specialty crops and the organic agriculture.
So from our perspective, the pathway forward is very clear.
We are looking to leverage the USDA science investment for the
continued success of the specialty crops and organic industry.
In this time of fiscal austerity, we are committed to
maximizing the return on the investment of federal dollars in
science, education and extension activities. We are working to
coordinate across the agencies with their stakeholder
engagement and we are committed to conducting the foundational
pre-commercial scientific research to develop educational tools
based on that and provide them to farmers by using our
cooperative extension network.
I am going to be pleased to answer any questions you may
have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Woteki can be found on page
80 in the appendix.]
Chairwoman Stabenow. Thank you very much, to both of you.
And before proceeding with questions, I know that Senator
Johanns wanted to make a comment.
Senator Johanns. Madam Chair, thank you very much. And I
know this is out of order, but I do have to leave for another
meeting, so I really thank you for the opportunity to say a
word about a very, very good friend who I just want to offer my
best wishes to, and that is Dave Johnson, on his impending
retirement.
When I was secretary of Agriculture and we were drawing
ideas and putting them together for a proposal to Congress
about some changes in the Farm Bill, it was Dave and a very
small group at the USDA that actually put pen to paper. And his
work ethic, his knowledge of ag policy is just literally
unrivaled and I could not have done what I did without his
assistance.
I want to also say I cannot imagine doing a Farm Bill
without Dave Johnson. How does that happen? He has been a part
of the Farm Bill process on four different occasions, which is
a significant amount of history. Dave leaves with my
appreciation, my gratitude and my prayers and best wishes for
everything that is ahead of him and I thank you for this
privilege. It was very important to me personally that I say a
few words about Dave. Thank you.
Chairwoman Stabenow. Thank you, Senator Johanns, and
Senator Roberts had indicated earlier his comments and we all
share in that. And Dave, do not get too far away. We will have
to see if we can get you back to help with the Farm Bill. So
thank you very much for those comments.
We will proceed now to questions. Let me start, Dr. Woteki,
about research and innovation, which is so important, a very
important tool for our farmers as they're managing risks to be
successful. We all know that a wide range of research is
needed.
My concern is that despite the need, agricultural research
continues to lag behind other research funding. In fact, there
are over $400 million in expiring programs in the research
title, including the Specialty Crop Research Initiative, and we
have lost over $130 million due to the elimination of the
Congressionally-designated projects, which we have dubbed
earmarks.
We have changed that process. We are not doing that
anymore, and yet, that has been a primary way that we have
provided dollars for universities when I think of Michigan
State University in Michigan. And so we need to find other ways
in which we can come together to be able to address that as
this process has changed.
So I wondered if you might speak to how your agency is
balancing the increased demand with reduced funding, any
thoughts that you would have about how we need to move forward
in changing the process around research to make sure that we
are focusing particularly on the real world impacts for
farmers.
Ms. Woteki. I think that question hits on one of my central
concerns, and that is that at this point in time, with all of
the challenges that are facing farmers in the U.S., the
provision of new technologies that are going to help them be
successful is extremely critical.
Those new technologies come out of research. They come out
of developmental activities that occur in the private sector
and that build on the kind of foundational research findings
that come from the intramural and the extramural research
programs that are supported at USDA. I do think it is extremely
important that attention be given to the very important role
that the investment in research and extension play in
agricultural productivity.
Just this week, the Economics Research Service has issued a
report that will make available to the Committee, that projects
out to the year 2050 what the effects will be on agricultural
productivity under three different budget scenarios. One would
be maintaining at constant dollars the current investment. The
second scenario is assuming that the agricultural research and
extension investment keeps up with inflation, and that
assumption is that it would lead to an increase in the level of
funding of 3.7 percent per year.
And the third scenario is 1 percent additional growth on
top of that, so a 4.7 percent increase. And it projects out
what the effects are going to be on agricultural productivity.
At the constant dollar approach, we will not be able, under the
projections, to meet the demands for food in the United States.
Our agricultural exports would go down.
So to your point, there are emerging some very important
analyses that I think will help to inform your viewpoints, the
Committee's viewpoints about the necessity for maintaining
these investments in agricultural science, our extension
programs, as well as higher education, because we need to be
training the students that are going to continue this research
and education activity.
Chairwoman Stabenow. I could not agree more. Ms. Wright, if
you could speak to what is a major concern for specialty crop
growers, and that is pest and disease problems. You have spoken
to that already, but we have a number of different issues in
Michigan, the brown Marmorated stink bug and things with funny
names that are not funny actually, to farmers, the Spotted Wing
Drosophila and bugs that are having major impact on producers.
Obviously, prevention, early detection is very important.
This goes back to partnership with research and so on on how we
are going to address this. But it is my understanding that in
2011 the request for funding for plant pest and disease
management and disaster prevention, the request, the need was
$125 million, nearly three times as much as the funding that
was available.
And so could you talk about how you determine your
priorities in funding as it relates to the states and projects,
given the tremendous need and what we are hearing, particularly
from our specialty crop growers?
Ms. Wright. Thank you for the opportunity to talk a little
bit about some of the challenges that we at the department are
facing when it comes to doing more with less. I think across
the department, we are taking an approach that was outlined by
Undersecretary Woteki when it comes to better understanding how
we implement our programs at different funding levels.
I think within APHIS we are looking hard at our core plant
and protection programs and trying to better understand where
those dollars that are being spent and allocated are being
effective and where with some of our ongoing disease management
programs we are seeing we have to cut back.
And so we are doing that kind of looking at where dollars
can be used most efficiently in our battle against pest and
diseases and where we can target dollars to address new and
emerging diseases more effectively. So I think we are able to
do that and we are feeling comfortable that we are not leaving
the industry at risk under any one of those scenarios. I think
some of the programs that I outlined and that we are talking
about here today that are new to the Farm Bill are helping in
that effort and so moving forward we will continue to stay
focused on keeping the industry strong.
Chairwoman Stabenow. Thank you very much. My time is more
than up. I will submit some questions to you later about some
of what is happening at the borders in Michigan, as well. We
have--two weeks a new--the customs checkpoint in Port Huron
found a new type of beetle, the Capra beetle. It is one of a
number of different challenges we have had at the border in
terms of beetles coming in on wood and trash and so on.
So continue to work with you on those areas, because we
have a number of different challenges in this area and we need
to work with APHIS on. So thank you. Senator Roberts.
Senator Roberts. Thank you, Madam Chair. The department
obviously plays a very prominent role in bringing plants to
market that deliver multiple benefits to farmers and consumers.
It's important for the department to maintain a leadership role
in the review process outlined in the coordinated framework
between the Department of Agriculture, FDA and the EPA. And I
appreciate that new products have been approved this year, but
I am concerned and I think most on the Committee are as well,
about the overall length of time that the process is taking.
Would you comment on the USDA's role in the coordinated
framework and the time frame for the review of the new products
and having said that, if you really do not want to take time to
answer it now, by a written response after the hearing is just
fine. But I think it is terribly important in regards to the
length of time that it is taking.
Would you comment?
Ms. Wright. Thank you, Senator Roberts. I want to make sure
I understand your question. You are talking about the
regulatory process that APHIS oversees when it comes to
biotechnology products?
Senator Roberts. Yes. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Wright. We would be happy to submit to your staff some
of the long-range plans or at least Fiscal Year 2011 plans we
have in place for moving products forward, moving decisions on
products forward.
The secretary has emphasized the importance of improving
efficiencies around our regulatory process so that we can in a
timely way put together important environmental documents, as
well as regulatory justifications for our decisions that are
defensible and that stand the test of time, and do that in a
way that we are supporting the industry and moving technology
forward. That is something that this administration is
supportive of and the secretary of Agriculture is supportive
of.
Senator Roberts. I know the president issued an executive
order January 18 asking all agencies to submit a cost benefit
study or to take a look at all of the regs that they have been
promulgating and future regs. There are a few loopholes that we
have tried to do in a bill that I have introduced to take those
loopholes and to codify the president's executive order.
He deserves a lot of credit for doing that and I know the
department is doing its best to do exactly that, and that you
cannot go anywhere today in farm country, or for that matter,
anywhere without somebody standing up and saying what on earth
are you doing drowning this in regulations that do not make
sense or they might put me out of business. But thank you for
that and we will look forward to that report.
Now, let's see here, back to specialty products.
Specifically the plant pest and disease management and disaster
prevention program, you have mentioned this program is widely
supported by industry. It is over subscribed. Can you provide
us with further information about the program, specifically in
addition to the 50 million funding allocated in Fiscal Year
'11? Congress appropriated another 248 million for pest disease
prevention, eradication and mitigation.
Now, my question really is, how does this program differ
from the funding that Congress appropriates annually for pest
and disease eradication and mitigation? Is there some
duplication here that should be addressed given the current
realities of the budget situation, and if so, how do you
recommend we address?
Ms. Wright. Thank you again for the opportunity to talk
about some of these important programs. I think the section
10201 program, which was authorized by Congress, outlined sort
of six priorities that kind of govern or direct APHIS in their
approach to administering that $50 million. And the ultimate
goal, I think, is to engage the states around the surveillance
and detection and rapid response to some of the threats to
specialty crops in a way that we save dollars over the long
run.
So we are putting in place an infrastructure that actually,
hopefully----
Senator Roberts. Why don't you include that in the
information that you are going to provide the Committee and I
am going to skip over here some other questions that I will
submit for the record and move on to Undersecretary Woteki.
Too many questions. Are there any funds available through
Section 32 to address the disaster we are going through with
the mid-west floods and the drought? And I'm asking
Undersecretary Wright. What other resources are available at
USDA? We are burning up out there, but we are--it is as bad as
it was in the thirties.
Ms. Wright. The secretary does have the authority to
transfer Section 32 funds to address disaster assistance and
there are funds in the account right now.
Senator Roberts. Okay, I appreciate that. I will get in
touch with Tom and you can as well.
Undersecretary Woteki, thank you for the work you do. I
appreciate your partnership and your cooperation. I know I am
over time 30 seconds, but that is the way it goes. Feel like I
was in the tunnel there with traffic.
The State of Kansas and Kansas City University were
selected to be the home of the new national bio and agri
defense facility and I know that you are very familiar with
that, that is, the Department of Homeland Security is building
to replace Plum Island. Our state has offered up the use of the
Bioresearch Institute, the BRI--that is a level three lab--to
begin shifting research from Plum Island to the new Kansas
location. Kansas has also offered up cost share money to help
the department expand its research in specific disease threat
areas.
Can you tell me where we are in the process of beginning to
transfer this research to the new location, also take advantage
of the cost share Kansas has said it will provide, and where
are we in completing a memorandum of understanding with Kansas
State and the State of Kansas on this front?
Ms. Woteki. Thank you, Senator Roberts, for those questions
about what is an extremely important facility, both for our
research programs as well as for the programs that APHIS
administers with respect to protecting our livestock from
animal diseases that occur in foreign countries, but are not
yet here in the United States.
We are working very closely to develop a plan for the
transition of our research programs on our part and APHIS'
programs from Plum Island into the new facility that will be
built at Kansas State University to replace Plum Island. We
would be happy to meet with you, share those plans, where they
stand right now.
As I think you have been briefed and your staff has been
briefed, we are currently working on a site-specific risk
assessment, the second of these that will be completed in
January of next year and is the subject of a review by the
National Academy of Sciences.
Senator Roberts. You have been very helpful in that, in
providing information to the NAS, which I think was, quite
frankly, rather sophomoric in their approach and in terms of
accurate science. We met with the panel, we meaning Senator
Brownback. He is now governor. And it was a little bit beyond
me in terms of what they reached.
But the Congress and the House has approved the money to
start this project. In the meantime, we need to get people
moving and get this project going. And so it is the memorandum
of understanding that I am really interested in and if you
could provide our office with that I would greatly appreciate
it.
And thank you so much for your help in the understanding of
how critical this is in regards to the food security of the
country. And my time is way over time, Madam Chairwoman, so I
will cease and desist.
Chairwoman Stabenow. Thank you very much. Senator
Gillibrand.
Senator Gillibrand. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and thank
you, Mr. Ranking Member, for your excellent questions. We
enjoyed them.
I would like to address first with Deputy Undersecretary
Ann Wright. I understand you are taking the lead in the Healthy
Food Financing Initiative at the USDA. That is one of the
issues that I have really taken a prominent role in the Senate
on because I think it is very important that we fully fund
these initiatives in the appropriation process, both in the '11
and '12 budgets.
Additionally, I am the lead sponsor of a bill called
Healthy Food Financing Bill that will place full authority
under the USDA to implement the essential program to solve our
food desert problem. Therefore, I want to talk to you about the
food desert map locator that you released on the USDA.
Now, as it is currently functioning, it is not actually
addressing major food deserts in New York City because of the
nature of how it considers distance. Now, New York City is
unique because we have food deserts, significant food deserts
in Harlem, Bronx and Central Brooklyn, parts of Queen and
Staten Island. And in New York, we have growing issues of
childhood obesity, of Type II diabetes, cardiovascular disease,
even in young children. And so we have to solve this food
desert problem.
So I would like to know how you are addressing that problem
in the program currently, because we do not have transportation
networks that reach to all markets and people do not drive in
New York City. They often take public transportation, and for
seniors, they cannot necessarily carry groceries long distances
and walk to the local market.
So what are you going to do to fix this problem?
Ms. Wright. Thank you for that question and thank you for
your leadership on this issue; it is recognized and very much
appreciated.
When USDA, the Department of Treasury and Health and Human
Services began their work on trying to better understand food
deserts or communities across the country that did not have
easy access to health food options, we were very much
challenged to come up with a definition and a tool that
addressed needs nationwide in both rural and urban communities.
And we are increasingly aware of where this tool and this
definition failed to capture some of the nuances of cities,
densely populated areas. And I think two things, one we stay
open, moving forward to working with cities like New York City
that have invested heavily in better understanding their
populations with groups across the country who are developing
their own data sets and mapping tools to improve what we can
offer.
But we also want to be very clear that our definition and
our map are not determinants of eligibility. What we are
looking for are ways that communities are addressing the
individual needs of their community, whether you are New York
City or whether you are a small rural town. And we want to make
that clear and we will be doing that.
We are providing a frequently asked questions document on
the Economic Research Service website and we will be reaching
out to stakeholders and local communities and governments
around the country to make that clear.
Senator Gillibrand. Well, I hope you will change the
website still, because it is really important, because so much
of this is about awareness and we want to be able to track
grocery store chains, other important participants in solving
the problem to focus on these inner city areas that really you
cannot buy Whole Foods fruits and vegetables at an affordable
rate for some of these communities.
So I urge you to at least put some discretion into your
model so the human mind can intervene and say well, this is
clearly a food desert, even though our model does not track it.
I think it is important for educational purposes and for
awareness that it is very obvious to everyone that these food
deserts are located still in New York City.
Ms. Wright. Thank you.
Senator Gillibrand. Thank you. Second point, New York City
is home to the highest volume produce market in the country. We
have this place called the Hunts Point Terminal Produce Market.
It has 3,600 employees, an estimated annual revenue of $2
billion. It serves as a spot market for growers all across the
country and with access to 23 million residents in the New York
City metropolitan area, a significant core of the country's
population is served by this market.
So I am wondering if USDA's contemplating using its
resources to help fund the infrastructure necessary to widely
distribute specialty crops.
Ms. Wright. I believe that the agricultural marketing
service staff who do a lot of work on our food hub issues are
meeting with some of the folks at Hunts Point this week to talk
about opportunities and to explore where we can be helpful in
growing that market.
Senator Gillibrand. Thank you. And then for Undersecretary
Woteki, just one question. We have heard from a lot of our
organic producers that some of the USDA staff are actually
unfamiliar with organic practices and programs or have certain
biases against these practices, making it hard for organic
producers to come to their local FSA or NRCS offices for help.
How has the USDA worked to educate its field staff to
better understand the needs of these producers?
Ms. Woteki. First of all, thank you for bringing this to my
attention. I did not realize that we were having these
problems. We will certainly look into it.
There are a wide variety of backgrounder information that
is available that we can make available to those field offices
about the importance of this very growing sector of
agriculture, so we will look into that.
Senator Gillibrand. It is a very significant economic
opportunity, not only for New York, but for the country.
Organic products currently make up 4 percent of all food sales
and organic fruits and vegetables up to 12 percent of the U.S.
fruit and vegetable market. So we want to continue to look to
the organic market as a revenue producer for our economy and
give those producers as many resources as necessary to continue
to grow those markets.
Ms. Wright. If I might take a stab at answering that
question. I do know that we have entered into a cooperative
agreement with a non-profit that is doing training of NRCS
staff across the country and they have developed a curriculum
to do that. And we are looking into a online ag learn program
that will educate USDA staff in organic production practices.
Senator Gillibrand. Perfect. Thank you so much, both for
your service and your dedication.
Chairwoman Stabenow. Thank you very much. Senator Lugar.
Senator Lugar. Secretary Wright, as we've discussed the
Farm Bill in 2007 once again, we came up against the fact that
for what were good reasons at the time during the Franklin
Roosevelt Administration there were restrictions on what could
be planted on how many acres on various farms. And in 2007, I
introduced what was named the Farm Ranch Equity Stewardship and
Health Act, the FRESH Act, which would provide a true insurance
based safety net for all farmers regardless of what did they
grow.
That particular act was not successful, although we had a
varied discussion of it in terms of modification of those kinds
of restrictions. I have re-introduced the Farm Flexibility Act,
and this legislation would permit producers to grow fruits and
vegetables for processing while maintaining their historical
base acres. This is one small step in liberating this decision
making.
I do have an opinion about that, or the importance of that,
and I raise it because it is a source of difficulty for
specialty crop farmers in my home state of Indiana. Whether
they are producing tomatoes or apples or what have you, they
run up against these restrictions that really date back to the
1930s.
Would it be helpful if they were liberated?
Ms. Wright. Thank you, Senator Lugar. Well, as you know,
the marketing regulatory program mission area does not
administer that flex pilot that was authorized in the last Farm
Bill, but I am aware of it and I know that our staff at FSA has
been doing outreach in those seven states that are part of the
pilot and trying to encourage participation.
I do know that the Economic Research Service issued a
report early this year looking at some of the challenges of
that pilot and will allow my colleague here to address that.
Senator Lugar. I would welcome that comment by Dr. Woteki.
Ms. Woteki. Well, as Undersecretary White has already made
reference, the Economic Research Service did earlier this year
produce a report on the effects of this pilot program. It
demonstrated very small. They used the term ``modest effects.''
We would be happy to share those results with you if you would
like a briefing on it, to provide it to you as background.
Senator Lugar. That would be helpful if you would brief our
staff on those findings and that will at least make our
discussions more informed as we proceed.
Ms. Woteki. Certainly.
Senator Lugar. Let me just ask another question, Dr.
Wright. In the 2008 Farm Bill, we amended the Farmer's Market
Promotion Program to include the so-called agri-tourism
promotion as a category for eligible funding. We provided $33
million in mandatory funding for five years.
Could you discuss the status of that program and what has
proceeded under it?
Ms. Wright. The program this year and next year will be
administering $10 million in competitive grants and what I can
do for you is to get you a list of those grants so that you can
see and we can see where there has been an uptick or an
increase in demand for efforts in and around agri-tourism.
It definitely is a program that tries to support direct
marketing activities and historically has been seen as a
program that supports farmer's markets. And I think there is
growing interest and growing awareness in other opportunities
outside of farmer's markets, which includes agri-tourism.
But if you would allow, we will get you a report that
outlines some of those activities that have been funded that
are specific to agri-tourism.
Senator Lugar. That would be helpful. I would be delighted
to have both reports in regard to my first question as well as
the second.
Ms. Wright. I am sorry; did I not answer both questions?
Senator Lugar. No, you did answer the first one by
indicating that a survey had been held in seven pilot states
and what have you. And so we will take a look at that one also.
Thank you very much. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chairwoman Stabenow. Thank you very much. Senator Casey.
Senator Casey. Madam Chair, I think I will submit questions
for the record in the interest of time because I have an
important introduction on the second panel.
Chairwoman Stabenow. Yes, we are well aware of that and we
will turn to you at the appropriate time.
Senator Casey. Thank you.
Chairwoman Stabenow. Senator Grassley.
Senator Grassley. I have no questions, Madam Chair.
Chairwoman Stabenow. Well, thank you very much. Well, we
thank both of you very much. We appreciate your leadership and
you both hold very important positions and we look forward to
continuing to work with you as we develop the next Farm Bill,
as well as focus on an ongoing basis on the issues that you
oversee. So thank you very much.
[Pause.]
Chairwoman Stabenow. Well, welcome. We are so pleased that
all of you are here with us today and we very much value all of
your input this morning.
Let me begin introductions. I know colleagues have
introductions that they would like to make as well, but first
let me start our first witness. Mr. Dennis Engelhard is from
Michigan--and it is so great to see you again--owner of
Engelhard Family Farms in Unionville, Michigan, where he grows
pulse crops and wheat and serves as the president of the U.S.
Dry Bean Council and is a member of the Michigan Dry Bean
Committee and the Tuscola Farm Bureau. Very much appreciate
your being here today.
And also, I am going to turn now to Senator Casey for our
next introduction.
Senator Casey. Thank you, Madam Chair. I am honored to be
able to introduce Kim Tait from Pennsylvania. Kim, I did not
have a chance to say hello to you today, so I am going to
pretend my arm can reach down there and say hello. I did not
have a chance to do that between--I should have done it between
the panels.
But we are grateful that Kim is with us today. I met Kim in
2007. We had a meeting in Pennsylvania among a number of women
who are playing significant and very important roles on farms
in Pennsylvania.
Kim is from both Centre Hall, Pennsylvania, and that is
within Centre County. One of the last times we spoke was in her
home area. Kim is an organic farmer and has had success as a
business woman as well as a farmer. She has a wide range of
certified--or I should say, she operates Tait Farm Foods where
she grows a wide range of certified organic fruits, vegetables
and green house projects.
Her operation includes a community-supported agriculture
product, a value added facility and on-farm retail store and
several education and research partnerships. She serves on an
agricultural advisory committee that I set up to help me better
understand some of the challenges we face in agriculture. She
is a founding member and past vice president of the
Pennsylvania Association for Sustainable Agriculture.
Kim, we are grateful you are here. We are looking forward
to your testimony and we are of course proud that a
Pennsylvanian is on this panel. Thank you very much.
Chairwoman Stabenow. Thank you very much, Senator Casey.
And now I am going to turn to Senator Gillibrand for the next
introduction.
Senator Gillibrand. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I am very
pleased to welcome a New Yorker, Paul Bencal, who is a grape
producer from Ransomville, New York in Niagara County in
Upstate New York. Mr. Bencal's farm consists of 50 acres of
vineyards, producing Concord and Niagara Juice grapes.
He has been operating his farm since 1973. Grapes are a
very important part of New York's economy. In 2010, New York
produced 35.2 million pounds of grapes worth $68.4 million. We
are the third largest grape producer in the country, which we
are very, very proud of.
In Upstate New York, tourists flock to enjoy the use of our
vineyards since we have some of the most scenic agricultural
lands in the country. The juice grapes that Mr. Bencal's farm
produces are nutritious sorts of vitamins, nutrients and anti-
oxidants, and with the obesity rate skyrocketing, pure grape
juice provides a healthy and very delicious beverage option.
Beyond farming the world's best grape juices, he also
serves as a leader to a number of New York's organizations. He
is chairman of the Lake Erie Regional Grape Extension Team, the
District 2 director of the New York Farm Bureau and a delegate
for the National Grape Cooperative.
Mr. Bencal, welcome to the Senate Agriculture Committee. We
thank you for traveling to D.C. today and to hear about your
experience of New York grape growers as we prepare for the 2012
Farm Bill.
Mr. Bencal. Thank you very much, Senator. Pleased to be
here.
Chairwoman Stabenow. Thank you very much. And our next
panelist comes to us from Hickman, California. Great to see
you. Mr. Robert Woolley is the owner of Dave Wilson Nursery, a
multi-generational family business that grows planting stock
for fruits and nut trees, both for orchard plantings and retail
sales. Mr. Woolley has also served as a member of the National
Clean Plant Network (Tier 2) Governance Committee for fruit
trees and we are so pleased to have you here today.
And also, Senator Lugar, you had introduced Mr. Glenn
Abbett before. I do not know if there is anything else you
would want to add at this point?
Senator Lugar. No, I just look forward to his testimony.
Chairwoman Stabenow. Terrific. And last, but certainly not
least, we have Mr. Charles Wingard, who comes to us from, is it
Pelion?
Mr. Wingard. Pelion.
Chairwoman Stabenow. Pelion. I am sorry, Pelion, South
Carolina, where he is the director of field operations at W.P.
Rawls and Sons. Mr. Wingard works to produce both value added
and fresh cut products, including greens, peppers, zucchini,
and I assume the great carrots that we just all received. This
is terrific. We are going to eat well today.
He serves as a member of the United Fresh Produce
Association's government relations committee. And I also
understand that your daughter, Mary Grace, successfully lobbied
for collard greens to become the state vegetable of South
Carolina and she is just nine years old. Do I understand that?
Mr. Wingard. That is correct, yes, ma'am.
Chairwoman Stabenow. We have an up-and-comer here. I think
we may have a future member of the United States Senate coming
up. Is she with you here today?
Mr. Wingard. No, ma'am. She is in a play tomorrow night and
she had dress rehearsal last night. My wife did not think she
should make the trip. I flew up. Am going back tonight.
Chairwoman Stabenow. Well, please give her our
congratulations and best wishes in all of her efforts.
Senator Roberts. Madam Chair?
Chairwoman Stabenow. Yes.
Senator Roberts. Could I ask what part of South Carolina
the gentleman is from?
Mr. Wingard. I am from the middle part of the state,
Lexington County.
Senator Roberts. Sure.
Mr. Wingard. Right in the Midlands.
Senator Roberts. My wife is from South Carolina.
Mr. Wingard. I understand that. I think Richland County?
Senator Roberts. She is from Sumter.
Mr. Wingard. Sumter. That's the better part.
Senator Roberts. But it is not too far away. I learned
early you can take the girl out of the South, but not the South
out of the girl.
Mr. Wingard. You got a good one.
Senator Roberts. Good luck to you.
Chairwoman Stabenow. She will be glad to know that collard
greens is now the state vegetable of South Carolina----
Senator Roberts. I am sure she will. She will be delighted.
Chairwoman Stabenow. --as a result of Mary Grace Wingard.
So thank you very much and we would now like to turn to all of
our witnesses. And of course, as we have indicated before, we
ask for five minutes of verbal testimony so we have time for
questions, and we would be glad to accept anything else that
you have in writing.
So welcome. Mr. Engelhard.
STATEMENT OF DENNIS ENGELHARD, OWNER, ENGELHARD FAMILY FARMS,
UNIONVILLE, MICHIGAN
Mr. Engelhard. Good morning, Chairperson Stabenow, Ranking
Member Roberts.
Chairwoman Stabenow. You need to push your button.
Mr. Engelhard. Committee members.
Chairwoman Stabenow. There you go.
Mr. Engelhard. There. We are on air. Thank you. I really
appreciate the opportunity to talk to you this morning. As
Senator Stabenow indicated, I do farm in Tuscola County, which
is one of the largest agricultural counties in the country. It
is also one of the leading dry bean producing counties in the
country.
I live on the farm that my great grandfather homesteaded in
1892. My son will be the fifth generation of my family that has
been involved in production agriculture.
I am here representing dry beans and dry beans are
responsible for about 18 percent of the specialty crop
production in the United States. We have always been kind of a
bystander in the farm legislation. We have typically used the
restricted planning clause to take the place of other
subsidies, direct payments, and we simply use that as a tool to
have a stable market for the crop that we grow.
In the last Farm Bill, we began to see through the
Specialty Crop Block Grants how valuable research was in not
only making our crop better, our industry better, but it also
was, as you look at specialty crops as a whole, I think Senator
Stabenow has seen how valuable they are to this country as a
whole, and some the goals that our nation has.
So the first thing I would like to talk to you about today
is the Pulse Health Initiative. The Pulse Health Initiative is
a joint venture between the United States Dry Bean Council and
the United States Dry Pea & Lentil Council. Pulse has grown in
24 states every year and they are processed in an additional 13
states.
The PHI started with a planning session in March of 2010 at
the ARS facility in Beltsville, Maryland. This planning session
brought together leading pulse researchers from across the U.S.
and included a number of ARS staffers as well.
We looked at three significant research areas at this
planning session, first of all, health and nutrition. Pulses
are low in fat. They are a fundamental source of fiber, protein
and they are very high in folates. Pulse crops provide an
outstanding health and nutritional benefit that not only
contribute to a healthy lifestyle, but can also help reduce
serious health problems.
The yearly indirect cost of obesity is seen as nearly $450
billion a year. Pulses could be part of that answer. While
existing research of dry beans, dry peas, lentils and chick
peas is certainly valuable, it is just the tip of the iceberg.
There is much more to be studied in pulse crops in order to
unlock their full potential for preventing nutrition-related
health problems that plague our world.
We also looked at sustainability. We talk about population
growth. Nine billion people will be on our planet by the year
2050. This creates tremendous pressure to produce more food on
fewer acres. Pulse crops can be an integral component in
designing sustainable production systems that will effectively
utilize limited land and water resources.
For example, it takes 1,857 gallons to produce one pound of
beef. It takes 469 gallons of water to produce one pound of
chicken. It takes 216 gallons of water to produce a pound of
soybeans, but it takes only 43 gallons of water to produce a
pulse crop that is so valuable in our food system.
We also looked at functionality and end use to better
utilize the health and nutrition aspects and the sustainability
aspects of pulses. We need additional research in the
functional use of pulse crops such as milled flour and
ingredients. We also need to develop more convenient ways to
bring pulses into our diet.
In short, the Pulse Health Initiative would allow us to
gradually refocus our research efforts to make America more
healthy and environmentally sustainable. I just also want to
make a few points about some other things that are very
valuable to us in the specialty crop industry. The Specialty
Crop Block Program has been referred to repeatedly here this
morning and it is being used very successfully. There are 66
applicants for block grants in Michigan this year. In the dry
bean industry, we are using them to evaluate and further the
use of more modern practices like direct harvest and also
narrow rows to help producers keep edible beans in their
production systems.
We also just want to laud the value of the foreign market
program--Foreign Market Development program and the MAP, Market
Access Program. These are effective partnerships for many
specialty crops and certainly in dry beans where we export one-
third of our crop and contribute to the balance of trade.
The only other thing I want to mention is the crop
insurance. Farmers really do not mind bearing the cost of their
risk management, as long as they have effective programs. Crop
insurance has done a very nice job for us. The specialty crops
need to be reviewed to make sure that there are opportunities
to protect our risks in the face of bad weather.
In conclusion, the Pulse Health Initiative, I believe, is
the shining star of my presentation this morning. I would
encourage all of you to become fully aware of the benefits that
are available through that program and that you would consider
using it as part of your vocabulary as you develop this Farm
Bill. Effective farm legislation has been a real key in keeping
cheap, safe, American--cheap food in front of all Americans and
we appreciate the efforts that have been made in that in the
past and we look forward to the continuation of that in the
2012 Farm Bill. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Engelhard can be found on
page 58 in the appendix.]
Chairwoman Stabenow. Thank you very much. Ms. Tait.
STATEMENT OF KIM TAIT, OWNER, TAIT FARM FOODS, INC., CENTRE
HALL, PENNSYLVANIA
Ms. Tait. Good morning. Thank you. Chairwoman Stabenow,
Ranking Member Senator Roberts, and Senator Casey and the other
members of the Senate Agricultural Committee, I am Kim Tait and
I am the owner of Tait Farm Foods. I am testifying on behalf of
the thousands of small and medium size organic family farmers
across this country. Thank you for allowing me to provide
testimony regarding the importance of organic agriculture and
specialty crops. It is truly an honor to be here.
As Senator Casey mentioned, I own and operate a small
family farm in Central Pennsylvania. It is a third generation
farm. We have a diversified business and we have a certified
organic farm. We operate 10 acres of organic vegetable, fruit
and greenhouse production. Our primary market is a 200-member
CSA and we serve three restaurants. We go to a local farmer's
market and have an on-farm retail store as well.
We also manufacture specialty foods on the farm in a small
facility and have a retail store and greenhouse operation. One
of the great gifts that we have had is we are on a main road
and we have had the good fortune to be able to support over 100
other local regional producers of food products, as well as
artisan crafts made in our region.
We also have a mail order business and a wholesale business
for our food products. And one of our roles that we have seen
is we have grown and expanded and evolved is that we provide
education and tours and research. We work collaboratively with
Penn State University, local government and community
organizations.
As a representative of organic producers, I want to
emphasize that we have been and continue to be the fastest
growing sector of the agricultural marketplace. Our successes
come from the growing consumer demand for healthy food and we
serve local, national and international markets. Our customers
want to be assured of organic authenticity for our products and
are willing to pay a premium for the integrity provided by the
USDA Organic seal.
Our industry has generated double digit growth in the
market for nearly two decades and during the recent recession,
we experienced 8 percent growth. I have had the good fortune to
participate in several of the USDA designed--programs designed
to help organic small and mid-size growers. These include the
Organic Cost Share Program, the EQUIP High Tunnel Grants, SARE
Research Programs and the NRCS Soil Conservation Services. And
we have also worked closely with Land Grant Agricultural
Extension. I am also very proud to say that we have recently
been approved to accept food stamps for our CSA.
The USDA's programs provide significant help for organic
producers. They allow us to grow our businesses by providing
seed money to take the next steps. We see them as a hand up and
not a hand out. They have become firmly rooted in sound
agricultural and business practices for most farms that have
received them.
The Organic Cost Share Program is helping thousands of new
and small farmers come into and stay in the growing organic
marketplace. An example on my farm of the value of these
programs is with the EQUIP High Tunnel Grant. This new growing
structure will allow us to double our winter and early spring
greens production. This is a good investment for both the
government and us and will continue to provide a return on
investment for the next 30 years.
Equally important, our ability to accept food stamps will
help us expand our market and allow families and individuals
with limited means to purchase locally grown organic foods.
This is a big deal for our community.
Successful and diversified farming operations create jobs
for rural communities, and they also train young farmers. The
average age of a farmer is 57 years old. This should frighten
all of us. And as Secretary Vilsack has said, if you think
dependence on foreign oil is bad, you have not seen anything
compared to the dependence on foreign food. We need dedicated
young people tilling the earth; there is just no doubt.
And young people seem to be drawn to organic agriculture.
We see it with internships and we have 10 students every year
applying for a one-internship opportunity on our farm. We
believe it is essential to continue to have oversight and
regulation from the National Organic Program. This governing
body assures consumers around the world that they can buy
organic food with confidence.
Organic growth is being driven by consumers and we are
working hard to meet the demand. Here is how I believe Congress
can help. Continue to fairly fund the National Organic Program.
Support new and beginning farmers with the Cost Share Program.
Continue to help organic farmers take the next steps with a
hand up. Support on-farm innovation through programs like EQUIP
and renewable green energy projects.
Simplify the granting process and make it farmer friendly.
The current value added producer grants have a deadline of
August 29th. It is the height of the growing season. Base
grants on sound business proposals rather than feasibility
studies.
By and large, we are a group of doers. I do not really need
$100,000 to study something, but if you invest in my project, I
will make it happen and get it up and running. Support organic
export markets. It is 8 percent of our business and continues
to grow. Make funding and tax incentives for farmland
preservation and conservation easements permanent.
Chairwoman Stabenow. I am going to need to have you wrap
up.
Ms. Tait. Oh, I am sorry.
Chairwoman Stabenow. Thank you.
Ms. Tait. Okay.
Chairwoman Stabenow. Yes, that is all right.
Ms. Tait. Can I just make my closing?
Chairwoman Stabenow. Sure.
Ms. Tait. Excuse me. We are all in this together and each
of us has a role to play. In nature, we know that diversity
creates stability. I believe the same is true for agriculture.
It is the diversity of our farms and farming systems that make
American agriculture great.
Organic agriculture is an important part of the future of
food from local to global. We ask that we get supported fairly
in the 2012 Farm Bill so we can do our part. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Tait can be found on page 62
in the appendix.]
Chairwoman Stabenow. Thank you. Thank you very much. Mr.
Bencal.
STATEMENT OF PAUL BENCAL, OWNER, PAUL BENCAL FARM, RANSOMVILLE,
NEW YORK
Mr. Bencal. Chairwoman Stabenow, Ranking Member Roberts,
and members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to
discuss grape grower priorities and the National Grape
Cooperative as you work to develop the next Farm Bill. I have
also submitted a written testimony, slightly longer than my
oral will be.
Welch's National Grapes wholly-owned marketing cooperative
processes and markets our members' grapes in the United States
and 51 other countries. While Welch's is a well-known American
brand, its owners are family farmers with an average farm size
of 40 acres. I appreciate the opportunity to submit testimony
and request that the statement be made part of the official
record.
Chairwoman Stabenow. Without objection.
Mr. Bencal. Specialty crops--I am sorry.
Chairwoman Stabenow. That is fine. We are just putting it
in the record. Thank you.
Mr. Bencal. Okay. Specialty crops do not receive direct
government subsidies and each year there are significant risks
that growers in one or more areas in the United States will
suffer weather-related damage. I and many other farmers are in
business today because crop insurance and disaster--of crop
insurance and disaster relief benefits.
The SURE program in the 2008 Farm Bill was designed to
eliminate the need for ad hoc disaster relief. While payments
were slow and did not provide enough relief, there were growers
who benefitted from SURE. There is no baseline funding for the
SURE program and after September 30, 2011. I speak for more
than myself when I tell you that it is critical to a continued
U.S. grown food supply that growers are able to purchase
affordable crop insurance and that SURE or another disaster
program is incorporated into the next Farm Bill.
It is important to note that there are inequitable
differences between program crops listed on a Chicago Board of
Trade and specialty crops. One example is that the posted price
for grapes are calculated by first deducting a per ton cost of
harvesting and hauling while crops on the Chicago Board of
Trade are insured at the harvest price without deducting
harvest costs from the insurable price.
A more equitable treatment would be to treat grapes in the
same manner. Growers and an adjuster would determine the actual
dollar amount of harvesting and hauling costs which were
avoided because of crop loss and then deducted from the
eligible indemnity payment.
Juice grapes, like grains, are mechanically harvested,
resulting in a per acre cost of harvest that does not change
much just because the yield has been reduced by Mother Nature.
The Market Access Program, MAP, has a positive effect on U.S.
trade deficit. According to the USDA, between 1985, when MAP
was created, and 2008, agriculture imports increased by 300
percent.
MAP has significantly contributed to increased consumption
of Concord grapes in Japan through advertising and sales
promotions. Now, over 92 percent of retailers, or nearly 12,000
outlets, carry Welch's brand Concord juice grapes. Since 2007,
Welch's has seen exports to Japan grow by 46 percent. The
program has been funded annually since fiscal year 2006 at $200
million.
We request that MAP funds are maintained at least at
current levels in the next Farm Bill and that branded
cooperatives continue to be eligible for MAP.
Funding for the former Viticulture Consortium no longer
exists. Continued research is critical if U.S. growers will
successfully compete in a world marketplace. The consortium
established in 1996 funded grape-related research in all states
from all disciplines. Over the past 15 years, an average of 1.2
million was distributed annually.
The program has been especially valuable and effective for
the grape growing industry because funds were directed to top
priority research. While the largest single source of the
industry-directed research funding, the seed funds that the
consortium provided were often supplemented by state and
private funds, extending the reach and benefits of the program.
Without federal funding, additional state and private funds are
in danger of elimination. For these reasons, it is important
that research funding for National Institute of Food and
Agriculture is included in the Farm Bill.
In recent years, aggressive regulatory efforts have been
initiated, affecting nearly every aspect of U.S. agriculture.
We appreciate the oversight of this Committee to closely
monitor the impact of the regulatory burdens and I thank you
for acting on reducing the Regulatory Burdens Act, H.R. 872.
On October 31, 2011, duplicative enforcement layers on
thousands of pesticide applicators will expose them to legal
jeopardy through citizen suits. Action taken by this Committee
to approve H.R. 872 is an important step to fixing the
duplicity. It is critical that the Senate pass legislation
before October 31st.
And finally, as part of the Farm Bill debate, farmer-owner
cooperatives are concerned that all forms of fruits,
vegetables, tree nuts are eligible for USDA programs. I want to
thank you for this opportunity to testify. Thank you for your
leadership in assisting American farmers and ranchers. And I
must comment that you have already allowed David Johnson to
leave the room and from what I have heard, we probably should
not let him leave the building in jeopardy of the 2012 Farm
Bill.
Chairwoman Stabenow. That is right.
Mr. Bencal. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Paul Bencal can be found on
page 52 in the appendix.]
Chairwoman Stabenow. Thank you very much. Mr. Woolley.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT WOOLLEY, OWNER, DAVE WILSON NURSERY,
HICKMAN, CALIFORNIA
Mr. Woolley. Chairman Stabenow, Ranking Member Roberts and
Senator Lugar and guests, thank you for the opportunity to
testify today. I am Robert Woolley, owner of Dave Wilson
Nursery, a California nursery that grows approximately five
million deciduous fruit, nut and shade trees annually for
commercial orchardists and the home garden trade.
I am also testifying on behalf of the American Nursery and
Landscape Association, our national trade organization, and its
state counterpart, the California Association of Nurseries and
Garden Centers. We are grateful meaningful specialty crop
provisions were part of the 2008 Farm Bill.
I would like to focus on two section of the Farm Bill that
are of critical importance to specialty crop producers. Title
X, Section 10201 provided funding for plant pest and disease
initiatives. Section 10202 funded the National Clean Plant
Network. These sections acknowledge the enormous keep-us-up-at-
night threat that foreign pests, plant pests and pathogens pose
to U.S. specialty crops and markets.
Section 10201 has funded a range of plant pests and disease
programs in partnership with industry and state collaborators.
Funded programs address six broad goal areas. Under goal four,
safeguarding nursery production, funded initiates are laying
the groundwork for a modernized nursery certification system.
Goal six, enhance mitigation, provides better tools to better,
to more quickly detect, contain and eradicate new pest
introductions. Perhaps the best recent example of a program's
success involves Plum Pox Virus, which I will go into later.
To us, Section 10202, the National Clean Plant Network,
stands as one of the brightest success stories of the specialty
crop title. I am an active member in this effort and now serve
on the network's governance committee for fruit trees. The
network provides technical expertise, equipment and capacity to
test mother plants from which nursery stocks are propagated to
determine if they are free of disease.
If no clean plants are available, the network can eliminate
virus and other disease causing pathogens via heat treatment,
chemotherapy and other methods that cannot be implemented at
the farm level. The Clean Plant Network provides apple, peach,
plum, cherry, grape, citrus and berry growers with safe access
to the world's newest varieties and supports profitability and
global competitiveness.
Farm Bill resources have enabled robust coordination of an
effective national network. Continued funding of the Clean
Plant under the Farm Bill is absolutely essential. The
eradication of Plum Pox Virus is a dramatic success story for
10201 and 10202 programs. This serious disease of stone fruit
was first detected in the U.S. in 1999. Left unaddressed, the
U.S. would have faced the same devastation that swept through
parts of Europe where yield losses reached 80 to 100 percent
among susceptible crops.
From 2009 through 2011, more than $4.5 million in 10201
funding went towards detection surveys and to manage immediate
threats to growers in Pennsylvania, in New York and Michigan.
In 2009, USDA and state partners used 10201 funding to complete
the intense monitoring and declare eradication of Plum Pox in
Pennsylvania, which by the way, was only the second time in
history that a virus disease was eliminated in a country.
Without 10201 funding, eradication efforts in Pennsylvania
may not have succeeded. To quote Benjamin Franklin's most
famous adage, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
The overall cost of the Pennsylvania Plum Pox eradication
effort was close to $50 million. The Clean Plant Network is now
a proactive line of defense against this happening again and
the $5 million in annual funding is a well spent ounce of
prevention that enables safe importation of plant materials and
reduces the temptation for illegal suitcase importations that
threaten our industry.
On a negative note, the full potential of these Farm Bill
programs has been hindered by USDA legal opinion that has held
up money for these and certain other programs. Congress has
fixed the problem a couple of times, but only temporarily,
leaving these programs subject to stop and start delays and
uncertainty. We urge Congress to enact a permanent fix.
In conclusion, the 2008 Farm Bill finally gave specialty
crop producers a meaningful place in the Farm Bill. These
industries are roughly half the value of all U.S. crop
production. And by the way, nurseries are about a third of
specialty crops. They are high-valued crops generating jobs and
economic activity in rural community. For our industry the
plant pest and clean plant provisions have been among the most
beneficial.
We hope that you will be able to provide continued and
improved funding in the next Farm Bill. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Woolley can be found on page
74 in the appendix.]
Chairwoman Stabenow. Thank you very much. Mr. Abbett.
STATEMENT OF GLENN ABBETT, MANAGER, ABBETT FARMS, LLC,
LACROSSE, INDIANA
Mr. Abbett. I would like to thank the Committee for this
opportunity to talk, and especially Senator Lugar for your kind
words and for mentioning my son, Casey, who now has quite a
story to go back home in Indiana to tell to his friends.
Good morning. My name is Glenn Abbett. I am a farmer from
LaCrosse, Indiana. I am here in support of Senator Lugar's
Farming Flexibility Act. It would cut federal spending, add
American jobs, improve the environment and protect the fresh
produce industry from competition on subsidized farm ground.
Let me start with my farm. On our family farm, we grow
corn, seed corn, soybeans, wheat and about 650 acres of
processed tomatoes. My tomato production is under contract with
the Red Gold, Inc., an Indiana tomato processing company.
I am here today on behalf of the American Fruit and
Vegetable Processor and Growers Coalition. We see greater
flexibility to grow fruit and vegetables for processing. Since
1996, farm policy generally has prohibited the production of
fruit and vegetables on base acreage, though there are
exceptions. This restriction was adopted to prevent producers
receiving farm program support from competing with farmers
growing the fresh fruit and vegetable market.
The prohibition on growing fruit and vegetables was not a
significant problem until the 2002 Farm Bill, where soybeans
became a program crop. Virtually all of the quality farm land
in states like Indiana now have program base. The problem has
three dimensions, first, program restrictions. I have gradually
taken over our family farm from my father. His producer history
has been lost.
Second, fear of base acreage loss. Like most mid-west
farmers, I rent much of my farm ground. Quite rationally,
landlords fear fruit and vegetable production could cause them
loss of base acreage. So even if they have farm history, many
will not allow me to grow vegetables on their land I rent from
them.
Third, the restriction is a threat to my market. As time
goes on, about 5 percent of the mid-western vegetable producers
stopped growing vegetables each year. That means that each year
it will be harder for our processor market to stay in business
because they cannot contract enough for production.
Before the last Farm Bill gave flexibility, many processors
were unable to contract for all the production that they
needed. Now the problem is only occurring with dry beans
because they were not included in the pilot flexibility. The
last Farm Bill addressed these problems by creating a pilot
project that also requires fruit and vegetable production under
the pilot project to be under contract for processing. In
reviewing performance of the pilot project, USDA concluded that
it showed modest consumer benefit, real benefit to fruit and
vegetable growers and processors in the Midwest and no harm to
the fresh produce industry.
Of course, participation in the pilot program also saved
taxpayer money because producers like myself opted out of the
program participation on those acres. So the pilot program has
been a big success.
We want to thank Senator Lugar for introducing the Farming
Flexibility Act of 2011, as well as Chairwoman Stabenow, who
has previously co-sponsored this legislation. The Farming
Flexibility Act of 2011 would fix this three-fold problem by
allowing an acre for acre opt-out from the farm program for
production of fruits and vegetables under contract for
processing.
My fellow witness from South Carolina is here to carry a
message of opposition to allowing production of vegetables for
processing. In every county in South Carolina, USDA rules say
farmers may produce fruit and vegetables for the fresh or
processed market under the double cropping exception, so they
receive program payments on the very acres used to produce
vegetables for the fresh or processed market.
We are not asking for the flexibility South Carolina has.
In the Midwest, we just want to be able to opt out of the
program on an acre-for-acre basis to grow vegetables for
processing. That would save taxpayer dollars, save American
jobs, allow environmentally desirable crop rotations and
benefit the consumer, all without harm to the fresh produce
industry. That is precisely what the Farming Flexibility Act
would do.
Thank you for considering my views.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Abbett can be found on page
42 in the appendix.]
Chairwoman Stabenow. Thank you very much. Mr. Wingard.
STATEMENT OF CHARLES WINGARD, DIRECTOR OF FIELD OPERATIONS,
W.P. RAWLS AND SONS, PELION, SOUTH CAROLINA
Mr. Wingard. Thank you, Madam Chair and Ranking Member
Roberts and members of the Committee, for allowing me to
testify today.
My family specializes in southern leafy greens such as
collards, kale, mustard and turnip greens. We produce a variety
of summer vegetables in season and also have a few other year-
round vegetables. I work with eight other family members
everyday to oversee operations on my farms. Therefore, I am
pleased to be here.
We have farm operations in South Carolina and Mississippi.
We have relationships or contract growers in Florida, Virginia,
New York, Georgia and Texas. Our produce is marketed and
delivered throughout the eastern United States and about half
of our leafy greens are washed and packaged in our own facility
and sold as fresh cut chopped greens under our own labels.
As you mentioned, Madam Chair, I am also involved in our
national trade organization, United Fresh Association. We
represent 1,700 growers, packers, shippers, fresh cut
processors, distributors and marketers of fresh fruits and
vegetables, accounting for the vast majority of produce sold in
the United States.
My family strongly supports the efforts of the Specialty
Crop Farm Bill allowance and all the organizations that they
represent. As a larger grower, I am pleased that this Committee
has sought out and is getting the input of small farmers and
organic farmers. I think they are very important in the makeup
of the agricultural fabric of this country.
My written testimony covers a broad spectrum of issues that
are important to the specialty crop industry, but I want to
touch on a few. Madam Chair, I thought you did an excellent job
in summing up how specialty crops became included in the Farm
Bill in '08. I would be remiss if I did not add to your
comments.
A lot of people in '07 and '08 contributed to the cause,
but much of the success of our efforts can be attributed
directly to you because of your leadership during that debate.
For that we offer our sincere thanks.
A few components I would like to consider for '12 going
forward. Specialty Crop Block Grants have served as the
cornerstone of the '08 Farm Bill. These block grants have
presented the best example to drive local solutions,
opportunities and priorities to specialty crop stakeholders in
each state and should be enhanced in the '12 Farm Bill.
The fresh fruit and vegetable program is another important
program in the Farm Bill. I gave you some snacks today and that
is a result of that funding in the Farm Bill. With regards to
the '12 Farm Bill, I would like to highlight that this program
will reach more than four million low-income elementary school
children nationwide this coming year. It is highly effective
and in rural South Carolina anyway, at least in South Carolina,
in rural South Carolina is very visible. This program helps to
increase young children's consumption of fruit and vegetables
at school.
My state of South Carolina will receive $2.7 million this
year to implement this program and this will allow 128 of our
elementary schools to participate, touching 40,000 students.
The average rate of fruit and reduced lunch in those schools is
over 85 percent.
For many of these students, if not all, but for a very--
probably the very biggest majority of them, they will not be
exposed to fresh fruits and vegetables in any other way in
their life because--or in their young lives to this point
because of their socioeconomic status. We have been a leader in
this program and have worked with our state to educate schools
in how to ensure successful implementation.
We have traveled to school districts all over South
Carolina and have helped them implement it. We have developed
fresh cut vegetables and fruits and kid-friendly packages, such
as you see and have, to offer to the schools and to their lunch
programs. This is a win for agriculture, a win for the produce
industry, for our children and for public health.
Finally, let me touch on research, which is both the
foundation and catalyst for growth and the advancement of any
industry. For the American specialty crop industry, successful
research projects have the ability to reduce the future burden
of the Federal Government through greater public access to
healthy products, enhanced exports to growing markets, pest and
disease resistant crops and reduced resource consumption and
variety of other beneficial applications. However, in order to
offer these benefits and reach these goals, U.S. specialty
crops require an enhanced commitment to research and extension
activities focused on their priorities.
We look forward to working with the Committee on the
development of the next Farm Bill. We ask that you continue to
build on the foundation and investment of the '08 Farm Bill and
ensure that our important issues are appropriately addressed as
you move forward. However, we do realize that Congress is
facing fiscal constraints and we ask that you help keep us in
mind. If there is pain to be felt, honestly I think the best
thing is to share the pain.
Thank you, ma'am.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wingard can be found on page
65 in the appendix.]
Chairwoman Stabenow. Well, thank you very much. Senator
Roberts and I were commenting on the packaging, on the Carrots
for Kids in School, talking about sports candy. It is actually
very--I want to compliment you. It is a very smart packaging, I
think, and very appealing. So I am going to congratulate you on
that. It is one of the great partnerships that we have had in
the Farm Bill between our growers and our schools and I think
it is going to make a difference. So thanks very much.
Thanks very much to all of you. Mr. Engelhard, let me start
with you, because you grow specialty crops and also program
crops, so you are really in a unique position, I think, to
speak about what works and what does not work. I am wondering,
from your perspective, which of the programs that we have in
place right now have actually been most important to you in
supporting your work in terms of as a dry bean grower?
Mr. Engelhard. From a news standpoint, the Specialty Crop
Block Grants, I think we have heard across the whole panel here
today, seem to be very successful, because I think it allows
industries, different producer groups, to really look at what
issues they might have and apply in a very timely and
methodical manner to get some of this funding. And then since
they have put a lot of effort into getting that funding, they
make a lot of effort to make it a good program and use the
funds responsibly.
But certainly we have also heard across this panel how
important MAP and FMD have been to many of the specialty crops
and that has been on a long-term basis. Again, it has such
importance for export, for our commodities, but also for our
balance of trade as a nation.
Chairwoman Stabenow. As you indicated, the importance, I
think, of a Specialty Crop Block Grant is that it does allow
producers state by state to determine what is most important to
them and I appreciate your comments on that.
I wonder, to anyone on the panel, I would like to have you
speak about the current safety net programs and helping you to
manage risk in your operations and what do you think is most
effective. We, I think, as a Committee, really identify risk
management efforts as being critical in terms of support for
our farmers and the safety net obviously is critical.
I wonder if anyone would like to speak, or if all of you
would like to in terms of which safety net programs are most
important in helping you to manage risk?
Mr. Engelhard. Senator Stabenow, I will take that a little
bit, since you referred to the fact that I grow both specialty
and row crops. The row crops, the program crops, have been very
functional and the programs continue to evolve in ways that
help us to manage our risk very thoroughly.
The specialty crops, since there are less of them, and
since there is less of a base in edible beans, if we want to
grow a new edible bean because there is a market opportunity,
we have to grow that for three years before we can get any kind
of insurance on it at all. So that institutes some real risk.
The other thing, in some of the program crops, we now have
organic prices for crop insurance. In other words, there is
always a price differential between organic production and
standard conventional production, and now that has been
recognized in the corn and soybean crop, but again in the
specialty crops, those things have not evolved.
So taking a closer look at those specialty crops and how
they can be insured to make sure that the producers' revenue
stream is taken care of would be very valuable.
Chairwoman Stabenow. Thank you. Anyone else? Yes, Mr.
Bencal.
Mr. Bencal. If I may, when we first started assessing the
advantages for crop insurance within the grape industry,
especially with juice grapes, several years ago, I would
venture to say probably 15, 20 years ago we started discussion
with the RMA office on the classification of grapes. We first
started with I believe there were two, maybe three varieties
described as far as the grape industry. Now we are up to as far
as 14 different varieties.
We are still not done with RMA yet. It was a hard fight to
get them to believe that one size does not fit all, especially
when it comes to specialty crops. It varies not only from one
variety to another, but one crop to another. Tomatoes, peppers
and cucumbers are a lot different than--they have different
requirements than grapes do. Their market is different.
They have also come to understand that a variety of grapes,
Concords and Niagaras more specifically, you can use them for
juice grapes, but you can also use as wine grapes, as well. The
price difference is quite substantial.
It has been a long process and there is more work to be
done, but they are coming around. But it is just a slow,
tedious process to get them to understand. I would like to see
that sped up a little bit.
Chairwoman Stabenow. Thank you very much. I have run out of
my time and so I am going to turn to Senator Roberts at this
point in time for questions.
[Pause.]
Senator Roberts. Pardon me. I was looking for Spartacus
here on sports candy. On the back it says, hey kids, I'm
Spartacus, if you want to become a superhero by eating lots of
different fruits and veggies, or what we eat at Lazy Town.
Where is Lazy Town in South Carolina? I know where Lazy
Town is here.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Wingard. I think it is a fictional cartoon series. It
has been in Europe more than United States. It has kind of
forayed into the United States.
Senator Roberts. W.P. Rawl.com dash or slash Lazy Town.
That is very--we were wondering if you were Spartacus here on
this sample.
Thank you to the panel. Mr. Engelhard, I feel compelled to
say I feel your pulse. But rather than edible beans or
something that you could market as a special product that would
provide energy, et cetera, et cetera, and I am not familiar
with all the attributes of your product, but there is a great
market for that. Why do you call it pulse?
Mr. Engelhard. Pulse is----
Senator Roberts. No, why do you call it pulse? If you call
it--jazz it up a little bit, because I would imagine nine out
of 10 people involved in agriculture say, why don't you call it
X, what, bean or X edible bean, or superhero protein bean or
something? I am just interested.
Mr. Engelhard. And that is exactly why we need the Pulse
Health Initiative, because we need to be more creative in our
marketing efforts.
Senator Roberts. All right, I appreciate that. Ms. Tait,
the first commercial I ever made in running for office was
asking where is the next generation of farmers going to come
from. The fact that you pointed out that you have an 8 percent
growth in regards to organic right in the middle of a recession
I think is remarkable. By the way, the average age then was 52
as well, so we are sort of holding our own to some extent.
Let's see, Mr. Bencal, you talked about that consortium
that started in 1996. I just want you to know I had something
to do with that. At any rate, Mr. Woolley, we will get after
the legal beagles that are causing you so many problems. And
then Mr. Abbett, you really have--if you think flexibility was
a challenge for you now, you should have been here in '96. That
was a little--there was remarkable change, but I know exactly
what you are talking about and we will be trying to address
that.
Mr. Wingard, let's see, Lazy Town, I have already asked
that question. I think you probably hit it on the head in terms
of our budget responsibilities. We know that Agriculture will
contribute. We must, but everything should be on the table and
it should not be disproportionate with other programs.
And I have been trying to tell people, quit talking about
specific programs. Let's just say everything is on the table
and then let this Committee do it, because we have a lot of
experience on this Committee in regards to what we should be
doing, as opposed just to a numbers game.
I've only got a minute left, so I am going to ask you to
zip through this last question real quick. At the end of the
day, what keeps you up at night? Is it labor, FDA, EPA, pest
and disease threats, Mother Nature, Federal Government? What is
the number one challenge or risk that impacts your business the
most? Go.
Mr. Engelhard. Marketing.
Ms. Tait. Mother Nature.
Mr. Bencal. Weather.
Mr. Woolley. Immigration.
Senator Roberts. Really? Okay.
Mr. Abbett. Labor. Planting prohibition.
Mr. Wingard. Government responding to sensationalism in the
media.
Senator Roberts. I do not know how to fix that one.
[Applause.]
Senator Roberts. I would like to.
Chairwoman Stabenow. We actually can commiserate with you
on that.
Senator Roberts. As a member of the Fourth Estate myself, I
do feel your pain and pulse, or whatever. But at any rate, well
thank you for that. I think a lot of this, Madam Chairwoman, is
the impact of crop insurance and how it fits in and the
problems that we have had in regards to crop insurance. And
being part of the Carey-Roberts Crop Insurance Reform back in
2002, we need to do that as opposed to cutting crop insurance
by $12 billion in the last two Farm Bills. That was a terrible
mistake.
But then, all right, I am done. I appreciate you all coming
in. Thank you for your contribution.
Chairwoman Stabenow. Thank you very much and I could not
agree more about crop insurance. That is a major focus of our
discussion and work going forward. Senator Bennet.
Senator Bennet. First of all, Madam Chair, I want to thank
you for putting together this excellent panel. Your testimony
has been terrific and I actually had thought that every single
one of my questions had already been answered as you testified,
so thank you.
And I am grateful that--Mr. Woolley, I had not intended to
ask a question about this, but since you raised it, two weeks
ago, I think, or maybe three, I was on a conference call with
growers from Colorado and they were saying to me, Michael, we
are going out of business this year because of labor shortages.
I wonder if you would talk a little bit about your
observation that immigration is what keeps you up at night and
what you would like to see fixed.
Mr. Woolley. Well, we would like to see a way to continue
to farm using legal labor. The setup now is impossible. It has
been broken for decades. It is an untenable situation.
Senator Bennet. Tell us more about why it is impossible,
why it is broken, and Mr. Abbett, if you want to get into this
too, please do.
Mr. Woolley. We cannot get legal labor to come into our
farm, frankly. The mechanisms to provide labor are just not
adequate. People do not--people who are documented generally do
not come out to our farms. We are increasingly reliant on prime
labor contractors and it is a very fluid situation.
We accept the documents that are presented to us and we try
to do a very good job in that, but regardless, there is such
rapid turnover. We know that some of these people are
undocumented.
Senator Bennet. Mr. Abbett, I see you nodding your head.
Mr. Abbett. Yeah, I agree with him completely. We run into
the same issue. The regulations around verifying legitimacy of
our immigrant help has really caused us to rely on crew leaders
as well. And speaking to the crew leaders, the difficulties of
getting people from other countries to come here that are
willing to do the work that has to be done, we cannot do the
things that we do on our farm without these people. There just
are not willing people in our communities that do these jobs
and these people are willing.
But it is becoming increasingly hard to get those people
here for fear of crossing the borders, fear of filing out the
required paperwork properly and I think we have to fix--we have
to make it possible for us to get folks into this country that
are willing to do this work in a fluid fashion where they can
go back to the countries where they come from, but be able to
come back on a yearly basis and do the work that we desperately
need done on our farms.
Senator Bennet. Mr. Wingard?
Mr. Wingard. Thank you. If I could, I would like to answer
your question as well. H-2A is expensive and broken. H-2B is
about to become expensive and broken. What we need is a
reasonable solution to a serious problem.
I want to give you--I want to share with you a real life
experience we had about a year and a half ago. We petitioned
for 40 H-2Bs to work in my processing plant. We had to
advertise to U.S. workers. We had 81 people come in and apply
for the job the first week of January. The job did not start
until the first week of April, but the first week of January we
had 81 interviews. Thirty-one people out of 81 took the job.
So my 40 visas were reduced. As a direct reduction, they
were reduced to nine, by simple math. Three months go by and
when we had the processing line installed and the crops had
been grown and ready to harvest in the field and we called
these people to come to work, I get my nine visas from Mexico
into the country. Out of 31 people that took the job, only 13
showed up the first day of work.
So the first day we tried to run the line, instead of
having 40 people to run that processing line, I am only down--I
only have 22. Within two weeks, the 13 U.S. referrals are down
to about two, three, maybe four and within six weeks, we were
down to one.
At the end of the contract, which is nine months, 10 months
maybe, we had to let the U.S. referral go because the contract
was over. We offered them a job because they were really a
pretty good worker and turned the job down. They wanted to go
home and get a check.
There is similar nightmare stories concerning H-2A, maybe
even worse.
Senator Bennet. Well, my time is expired, Madam Chair. I
appreciate everybody's testimony. I think it is so important
for us to be having this conversation because Washington is
averting its eyes and pretending this issue does not exist, and
there is nothing that says that these jobs need to be in the
United States. And I want them to be in the United States, but
if we do not fix this problem, my concern is that these jobs
are going to migrate over this border and we are never going to
get them back again.
So thank you for being here today. Thank you for your
testimony. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chairwoman Stabenow. Thank you very much. This is a serious
challenge. Senator Lugar.
Senator Lugar. Mr. Abbett, in your original testimony, you
had to summarize some very complex points, so I wanted to give
you an opportunity to expand a bit on this. It has been
illustrated already. You are farming 4,300 acres and that
includes corn and soybeans and crops that are very common,
certainly in our State of Indiana, but likewise 650 acres or so
of tomatoes.
What are the problems? I sort of glossed over this because
it is very complex for somebody just to sign up to get acres in
the tomato program, that it affects a so-called base that we
have been talking about. You have indicated, if you are
successful in signing up with tomatoes, it actually saves
taxpayers' money because you come out from underneath some of
this.
But explain, if you will, this procedure and why it is
cumbersome and why we ought to reform it.
Mr. Abbett. Thank you for the question. Prior to 2002, the
procedure was extremely difficult because we--I mean, I am
sorry. After 2002, prior to 2008, the procedure was very
difficult because in the State of Indiana, when soybeans became
a program crop, there virtually was no acres available outside
of my own producer history and my farm's history.
And my farm's producer history, which at one time included
my dad, was severely hit when he left the farming business, or
the vegetable side of the farming business. And therefore, I
was left with a very minimal number of producer acres to raise
my specialty tomato crops.
Senator Lugar. Why would your dad leaving make any
difference?
Mr. Abbett. He had producer history tied to his Social
Security Number.
Senator Lugar. Personally?
Mr. Abbett. Personally, in his personal name, and when he
left the operation, those producer history acres left with him.
Senator Lugar. I underline that because most of us do not
understand, you have a death in the family or somebody decides
to go abroad or so forth, suddenly you lose this history and
therefore, you lose the ability even to produce on your land.
Mr. Abbett. Yeah, that is the key to the whole problem. As
people retire--in one instance, I had a fellow grower that was
killed. Those acres are lost forever. The acres available are
shrinking every year; that is a fact. The pilot program helped
fix that problem to a certain extent.
There are still some issues with the pilot program that we
deal with, the deadline, the fact that landlords have to sign
on and the fact that there is a lottery system in the event
that you go through the acres or more acres than what are
allotted for the state.
But the pilot program was a big success in giving us the
flexibility to plant our fruits and vegetables on base acres.
It allowed me to go out and find farms that were
environmentally advantageous, that were better farms to raise
tomatoes on and gave my land that I had to rotate on hard
ability to rest and that minimizes disease.
So the flexibility, the project flexibility has been a huge
success on my farm.
Senator Lugar. Let me just interrupt to say, it is almost
inconceivable in the common sense of the American public that a
farmer would not be able to plant tomatoes or beans or corn or
what have you on his land without these cumbersome restrictions
and all sorts of provisos, including the death of a member of
the family and so forth.
Quite apart from the fact made by the Chairman and the
Ranking Member, that crop insurance really has not covered
everything on the farm. It has not been whole farm insurance.
It has been a crop or a specific situation. This is why I am
hopeful, and this is why the testimony is important of all of
you today.
As we get into the new Farm Bill, we understand that there
are many ways of making money on a farm and that we ought to
have maximum freedom for farmers to be able to use their
enterprise and to meet markets, both at home and abroad, as
opposed to having these historical situations going on all the
way back to the thirties that have no relevance whatever,
except on occasion, vested interest who really want to keep
restrictions because they are hoping to hang on to some
particular privilege.
Your story, I think, is extremely important, as you are a
practicing farmer now on 4,300 acres and obviously honored by
the trade. But I am hopeful that your full testimony will be a
part not only of our record, but likewise of the education of
our colleagues as we proceed into the Farm Bill.
I thank you very much, Madam.
Mr. Abbett. Thank you.
Chairwoman Stabenow. Thank you very much. Senator
Klobuchar, welcome.
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman. I
would like to start by thanking you for holding this important
hearing on organic and specialty crops. We have a number, I
think people may know, we have major crops. We are sixth in
agriculture. We also produce a number of specialty crops. We
are first in sweet corn and green peas. Perhaps you have heard
of the Jolly Green Giant. I grew up in the shadow of the big
Jolly Green Giant and we support rural jobs at processing
plants and companies like Seneca Foods, located in Glencoe, and
Del Monte foods in Sleepy Eye, Minnesota.
I had a question, first of all, of you, Mr. Engelhard, and
this is about the testimony that you gave about the Pulse
Health Initiative and the major challenges you believe pulse
crops can address and overcome, including obesity and chronic
disease. We believe living a healthy lifestyle on this
Committee is incredibly important and in the U.S., as you know,
sadly approximately 34 percent of adults, 17 percent of
children are obese.
And my question is how you think continued research on the
health benefits of pulses would help kids to be less obese to
lose weight, and do you think pulses have a place in school
cafeterias or in the Farm to School Program, providing healthy
foods to school cafeterias?
Mr. Engelhard. Absolutely. You know, pulses are so diverse.
Edible beans are very colorful. Everybody has their own likes,
dislikes with edible beans and the key is to find really good
ways to put those things on the plates of our kids when they
are young and get them used to them.
For so long we have grown up in a society of fast prepared
foods and meat has been seen as a symbol that we are doing
well. We can go out and--economically that we can go out and
buy meat. And that is great. We all love beef. We all love our
chicken and so forth.
But when we really look at what the best way is to get
protein into our bodies, pulse crops provide a very good
option. And then when you look at the economics of using pulses
in our schools and in our cafeterias, using edible beans in
creative new recipes, there is just an unlimited opportunity
there to enhance the economics.
And then finally, you know, when we think about how can we
be environmentally friendly, pulses produce their own nitrogen.
I alluded to the small water foot print that it takes to grow
edible beans, peas and lentils and chick peas. And some of
those things are so opportunistic for our country to make us
healthier and also to make us more environmentally friendly.
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you. And then I have one last
question, Mr. Abbett. The 2008 Farm Bill allowed a voluntary
farm flexibility program that allowed farmers to produce fruit
and vegetables for processing without any punishment. And you
mentioned that the pilot project with specific acreage limits
had a significant hassle factor in annual--by the way, I have
never used that word. It is kind of fun. I will use it again--
significant hassle factor in sign up and how do you think
removing the acreage cap could further encourage the production
of fruit and vegetables for processing?
Mr. Abbett. Great question. Thank you for asking it. The
issue came about when I first attempted to sign up in 2009
where I became knowledgeable that in the event that there were
more than, I think 9,000 acres, asked for in the State of
Indiana, there would be a lottery that would choose those
acres.
So I was put in a position where I would go--where I needed
to go to landlords and say I would like to raise fruits and
vegetables on your land. I would like to pay you a fair rent
for that, but I cannot guarantee that is going to happen, and
by the way, it is a lottery that is going to decide whether
that can happen. And it may be I do not know exactly when the
lottery occurs and it may be April before I can come to you and
say, sorry, we did not make the lottery and therefore, I cannot
put fruits and vegetables on your property and I am going to
have to move them back onto my farm where I have history.
So that was a huge constraint, or that caused real issues
getting--having me have desire to use the pilot program in the
first years, worrying about whether or not I was actually just
going to get a bad name in the community for going out and
trying to rent property that I eventually could not rent
because of the lottery system.
Senator Klobuchar. Okay, well, very good. Hopefully we can
try to fix this, so I appreciate it. Thank you.
Chairwoman Stabenow. Thank you very much. Senator Boozman.
Senator Boozman. Thank you, Madam Chair. I know that the
risk management tools have come up and I think all of us are
committed to working hard to try and reform and improve those
for all segments of agriculture, the Farm Bill, comes about.
Mr. Bencal, you expressed the importance of passage of H.R.
872, the Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of 2011, prior to
October. We passed that in this Committee. It was passed in the
House. I appreciate you mentioning it. It is so important.
Hopefully working together we can get the vote in the Senate
and actually get that thing passed.
Mr. Bencal. Thank you, sir. I really appreciate it.
Senator Boozman. Well, again, thank you so much for
bringing it up. The only other thing I would say is that the
area where I live is actually where Walmart's at and the idea
of encouraging specialty crops where we can encourage entities
like that that work with our local producers I think is a very
good thing.
Hopefully we can work together to encourage others to do
the same thing. If you would like to comment about that.
Mr. Bencal. Yeah. In fact Welch's is vice versa. It is
probably one of Walmart's biggest customers and Walmart is one
of Welch's largest customers. And as a grape grower through
National Grape, Walmart, not that they insist, but it is very
important to them the title of viable agriculture comes up in
viable viticulture. We have become much more environmentally
sound in our farming practices, both from a wildlife aspect and
just plain environment aspect as far as spray drift, nutrition,
containment and putting--you know, hitting the target that we
are aiming at, whether it be nutrition wise or pesticide wise
or otherwise.
It just gets more and more important. It is funny, because
years ago when I first started in '73, we used to go out and
spray our vineyard at 8:00 Friday afternoon, or Friday evening.
The wind would calm down and you would go out there and you
would spray and 14 days, 20 days later, you would go out and
spray again.
Last year, I believe I--and you carried that on throughout
the summer. Last year I believe I sprayed twice. This year I
have sprayed twice and scouting the vineyard before I came down
here the other day. There is no reason to spray right now.
So we have come a long way in doing exactly that. The
registration in New York, I have to be a certified applicator
in the State of New York. We take an exam to get that
certification. We have to maintain a certain amount of credits.
It is renewed every five years and I have to maintain credits.
We have three to four grower meetings every summer where
collectively we all get together. An extension team comes down.
We have set this whole program up through Cornell. Management
practices are approached. Discussions are coming up, a lot of
networking going on amongst growers. A lot of discussion goes
on.
Senator Boozman. Well, I appreciate that. That really is a
great story to tell. All of you all work so hard to do the best
management practices.
Mr. Bencal. We do not take it lightly.
Senator Boozman. Very much so. You love the areas that you
are growing on and have a great respect and are trying to do
the right thing. Sometimes we make it very, very tough on you.
I do appreciate you all being here and all that you represent.
And hopefully working together with the new Farm Bill and stuff
we can help with some things and also push back on really some
regulation that I think is very heavy handed and just does not
do any good for anybody.
So with that, I yield back. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chairwoman Stabenow. Thank you very much. At this point, we
will conclude the hearing. Let me just indicate again how
important each of you are to American agriculture, as well as
the health of our country moving forward. When we look at
issues of diabetes and obesity and all of the other health
challenges that we have in the country, the role you play in
reaching our goals, both for jobs, success in rural America, as
well as the health of the country, is very important.
So by providing the tools and technical assistance to
growers that you need to manage risks, developing market
opportunities and innovation, we can help to ensure that
American consumers in schools, families, have access to safe
and healthy supply of American produce and we can continue to
create very important jobs for our country.
So thank you again, to each one of you for coming in, for
sharing your testimony and we look forward to working with you
as we move forward to write a Farm Bill. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 12:18 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
=======================================================================
A P P E N D I X
JULY 28, 2011
=======================================================================
=======================================================================
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
JULY 28, 2011
=======================================================================