[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 125 (Wednesday, October 6, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H8377-H8382]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
SPECIALTY CROPS COMPETITIVENESS ACT OF 2004
Mr. OSE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill
(H.R. 3242) to ensure an abundant and affordable supply of highly
nutritious fruits, vegetables, and other specialty crops for American
consumers and international markets by enhancing the competitiveness of
United States-grown specialty crops, and for other purposes, as
amended.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 3242
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Specialty Crops
Competitiveness Act of 2004''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
(1) A secure domestic food supply is a national security
imperative for the United States.
(2) A competitive specialty crop industry in the United
States is necessary for the production of an abundant,
affordable supply of highly nutritious fruits, vegetables,
and other specialty crops, which are vital to the health and
well-being of all Americans.
(3) Increased consumption of specialty crops will provide
tremendous health and economic benefits to both consumers and
specialty crop growers.
(4) Specialty crop growers believe that there are numerous
areas of Federal agriculture policy that could be improved to
promote increased consumption of specialty crops and increase
the competitiveness of
[[Page H8378]]
producers in the efficient production of affordable specialty
crops in the United States.
(5) As the globalization of markets continues, it is
becoming increasingly difficult for United States producers
to compete against heavily subsidized foreign producers in
both the domestic and foreign markets.
(6) United States specialty crop producers also continue to
face serious tariff and non-tariff trade barriers in many
export markets.
(b) Purpose.--It is the purpose of this Act to make
necessary changes in Federal agriculture policy to accomplish
the goals of increasing fruit, vegetable, and nut consumption
and improving the competitiveness of United States specialty
crop producers.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) The term ``specialty crop'' means fruits and
vegetables, tree nuts, dried fruits, and nursery crops
(including floriculture).
(2) The term ``State'' means the several States, the
District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
(3) The term ``State department of agriculture'' means the
agency, commission, or department of a State government
responsible for agriculture within the State.
TITLE I--STATE ASSISTANCE FOR SPECIALTY CROPS
SEC. 101. SPECIALTY CROP BLOCK GRANTS.
(a) Availability and Purpose of Grants.--Subject to the
appropriation of funds to carry out this section, the
Secretary of Agriculture shall make grants to States for each
of the fiscal years 2005 through 2009 to be used by State
departments of agriculture solely to enhance the
competitiveness of specialty crops.
(b) Grants Based on Value of Production.--Subject to
subsection (c), the amount of the grant for a fiscal year to
a State under this section shall bear the same ratio to the
total amount appropriated pursuant to the authorization of
appropriations in subsection (i) for that fiscal year as the
value of specialty crop production in the State during the
preceding calendar year bears to the value of specialty crop
production during the preceding calendar year in all States
whose application for a grant for that fiscal year is
accepted by the Secretary under subsection (f).
(c) Minimum Grant Amount.--Subject to the appropriation of
sufficient funds to carry out this subsection, each State
shall receive at least $100,000 each fiscal year as a grant
under this section notwithstanding the amount calculated
under subsection (b) for the State.
(d) Eligibility.--To be eligible to receive a grant under
this section, a State department of agriculture shall prepare
and submit, for approval by the Secretary of Agriculture, an
application at such time, in such a manner, and containing
such information as the Secretary shall require by
regulation, including--
(1) a State plan that meets the requirements of subsection
(e);
(2) an assurance that the State will comply with the
requirements of the plan; and
(3) an assurance that grant funds received under this
section shall supplement the expenditure of State funds in
support of specialty crops grown in that State, rather than
replace State funds.
(e) Plan Requirements.--The State plan shall identify the
lead agency charged with the responsibility of carrying out
the plan and indicate how the grant funds will be utilized to
enhance the competitiveness of specialty crops.
(f) Review of Application.--In reviewing the application of
a State submitted under subsection (d), the Secretary of
Agriculture shall ensure that the State plan would carry out
the purpose of grant program, as specified in subsection (a).
The Secretary may accept or reject applications for a grant
under this section.
(g) Effect of Noncompliance.--If the Secretary of
Agriculture, after reasonable notice to a State, finds that
there has been a failure by the State to comply substantially
with any provision or requirement of the State plan, the
Secretary may disqualify, for one or more years, the State
from receipt of future grants under this section.
(h) Audit Requirements.--For each year that a State
receives a grant under this section, the State shall conduct
an audit of the expenditures of grant funds by the State. Not
later than 30 days after the completion of the audit, the
State shall submit a copy of the audit to the Secretary of
Agriculture.
(i) Authorization of Appropriations.--For each of the
fiscal years 2005 through 2009, there is authorized to be
appropriated to the Secretary of Agriculture $44,500,000 to
make grants under this section.
TITLE II--SPECIALTY CROP ADVANCEMENT
SEC. 201. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE FOR SPECIALTY CROPS.
For each of the fiscal years 2005 through 2009, there is
authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of Agriculture
$2,000,000 to carry out section 3205 of the Farm Security and
Rural Investment Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 5680). Amounts
appropriated pursuant to this authorization of appropriations
shall be in addition to any other funds made available to
carry out such section.
SEC. 202. REDUCTION IN BACKLOG OF AGRICULTURAL EXPORT
PETITIONS.
(a) Reduction Efforts.--To the maximum extent practicable,
the Secretary of Agriculture shall endeavor to reduce the
backlog in the number of applications for permits for the
export of United States agricultural commodities. In
achieving such reduction, the Secretary shall not dilute or
diminish existing personnel resources that are currently
managing sanitary and phytosanitary issues for--
(1) United States agricultural commodities for which
exportation is sought; and
(2) interdiction and control of pests and diseases,
including for the evaluation of pest and disease concerns of
foreign agricultural commodities for which importation is
sought.
(b) Report.--The Secretary of Agriculture shall submit to
the Committee on Agriculture of the House of Representatives
and the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of
the Senate an annual report specifying, for the year covered
by the report--
(1) the total number of applications processed to
completion;
(2) the number of backlog applications processed to
completion;
(3) the percentage of backlog applications processed to
completion; and
(4) the number of backlog applications remaining.
SEC. 203. REPORT ON SANITARY AND PHYTOSANITARY EXPORT ISSUES.
Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of
this Act, the Secretary of Agriculture shall submit to the
Committee on Agriculture of the House of Representatives and
the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the
Senate a report on significant sanitary and phytosanitary
issues that affect the export of specialty crops.
TITLE III--SPECIALTY CROP RESEARCH
SEC. 301. METHYL BROMIDE ALTERNATIVES.
(a) Priority.--The Secretary of Agriculture shall elevate
the priority of current methyl bromide alternative research
and extension activities and reexamine the risks and benefits
of extending the phase-out deadline in effect on the date of
the enactment of this Act, including the estimated cost to
the grower or processor associated with any alternatives
proposed.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--For each of the
fiscal years 2005 through 2009, there is authorized to be
appropriated to the Secretary of Agriculture $5,000,000 to
carry out this section.
SEC. 302. NATIONAL SPECIALTY CROP RESEARCH PROGRAM.
Section 1672(e) of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and
Trade Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 5925(e)) is amended by adding at
the end of the following new paragraph:
``(45) Specialty crop research.--Research and extension
grants may be made under this section for the purpose of
improving the efficiency, productivity, and profitability of
specialty crop production in the United States.''.
SEC. 303. SPECIALTY CROP COMMITTEE.
The National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching
Policy Act of 1977 is amended by inserting after section 1408
(7 U.S.C. 3123) the following new section:
``SEC. 1408A. SPECIALTY CROP COMMITTEE.
``(a) Establishment.--Not later than 90 days after the date
of the enactment of the Specialty Crops Competitiveness Act
of 2004, the executive committee of the Advisory Board shall
establish, and appoint the initial members of, a permanent
specialty crops committee that will be responsible for
studying the scope and effectiveness of research, extension,
and economics programs affecting the specialty crop industry.
``(b) Members.--Individuals who are not members of the
Advisory Board may be appointed as members of the specialty
crops committee. Members of the specialty crops committee
shall serve at the discretion of the executive committee.
``(c) Annual Committee Report.--Not later than 180 days
after the establishment of the specialty crops committee, and
annually thereafter, the specialty crops committee shall
submit to the Advisory Board a report containing the findings
of its study under subsection (a). The specialty crops
committee shall include in each report recommendations
regarding the following:
``(1) Measures designed to improve the efficiency,
productivity, and profitability of specialty crop production
in the United States.
``(2) Measures designed to improve competitiveness in
research, extension, and economics programs affecting the
specialty crop industry.
``(3) Programs that would--
``(A) enhance the quality and shelf-life of fresh fruits
and vegetables, including their taste and appearance;
``(B) develop new crop protection tools and expand the
applicability and cost-effectiveness of integrated pest
management;
``(C) prevent the introduction of foreign invasive pests
and diseases;
``(D) develop new products and new uses of specialty crops;
``(E) develop new and improved marketing tools for
specialty crops;
``(F) enhance food safety regarding specialty crops;
``(G) improve mechanization of production practices; and
``(H) enhance irrigation techniques used in specialty crop
production.
``(d) Consideration by Secretary.--In preparing the annual
budget recommendations for the Department of Agriculture, the
Secretary shall take into consideration those findings and
recommendations contained in the most-recent report of the
specialty crops
[[Page H8379]]
committee that are adopted by the Advisory Board.
``(e) Annual Report by Secretary.--In the budget material
submitted to Congress by the Secretary in connection with the
budget submitted pursuant to section 1105 of title 31, United
States Code, for a fiscal year, the Secretary shall include a
report describing how the Secretary addressed each
recommendation of the specialty crops committee described in
subsection (d).''.
TITLE IV--PEST AND DISEASE RESPONSE FUND
SEC. 401. PEST AND DISEASE RESPONSE FUND.
(a) Establishment.--There is established on the books of
the Treasury an account to be known as the ``Pest and Disease
Response Fund''. There shall be deposited into the Fund any
proceeds received by the Secretary of Agriculture as
reimbursement for services provided by the Secretary using
amounts in the Fund.
(b) Availability.--Amounts in the Fund shall remain
available until expended.
(c) Use of Fund.--In implementing the Animal Health
Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 8301 et seq.) and the Plant
Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.), the Secretary of
Agriculture shall have complete discretion regarding the use
of amounts in the Fund to support emergency eradication and
research activities in response to economic and health
threats posed by pests and diseases affecting agricultural
commodities.
(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--For each of the
fiscal years 2005 through 2009, there is authorized to be
appropriated to the Secretary of Agriculture $1,000,000 for
deposit in the Fund.
SEC. 402. IMPORT AND EXPORT REGULATION REVIEW.
(a) Peer Review.--The Secretary of Agriculture shall enter
into an agreement with the National Plant Board to obtain a
peer review of the procedures and standards that govern the
consideration of import and export requests under section 412
of the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7712). The peer review
shall be consistent with the guidance by the Office of
Management and Budget pertaining to peer review and
information quality.
(b) Elements of Review.--The peer review required by
subsection (a) shall address, at a minimum--
(1) the preparation of risk assessments; and
(2) the sufficiency, type, and quality of data that should
be submitted to the Secretary of Agriculture.
(c) Submission of Results.--The results of the peer review
conducted under subsection (a) shall be submitted to the
Secretary and Congress not later than 180 days after the date
of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 403. MAINTENANCE OF FREDERICKSBURG INSPECTION TRAINING
CENTER.
For each of the fiscal years 2005 through 2009, there is
authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of Agriculture
$1,500,000 for the maintenance of the Agricultural Marketing
Service inspection training center in Fredericksburg,
Virginia.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Ose) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) each
will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Ose).
Mr. OSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. OSE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks, and include extraneous material.)
Mr. Speaker, I will include in the Record at this point an exchange
of letters between the Committee on Agriculture and the Committee on
Ways and Means regarding H.R. 3242.
House of Representatives,
Committee on Ways and Means,
Washington, DC, October 6, 2004.
Hon. Bob Goodlatte,
Chairman, Committee on Agriculture, Longworth House Office
Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Goodlatte: I am writing concerning H.R. 3242,
the ``Specialty Crops Competitiveness Act of 2004,'' which is
scheduled for floor consideration today.
As you know, the Committee on Ways and Means has
jurisdiction over matters concerning the Office of the United
States Trade Representative (USTR). Section 301 of the
introduced bill establishes at least one position within the
USTR having sole responsibility over trade matters concerning
specialty crops, and thus falls within the jurisdiction of
the Committee on Ways and Means.
Because you have removed this provision during Committee
action, and in order to expedite this legislation for floor
consideration, the Committee will forgo action on this bill.
This is being done with the understanding that it does not in
any way prejudice the Committee with respect to the
appointment of conferees or its jurisdictional prerogatives
on this or similar legislation.
Thank you for your letter which confirms this understanding
with respect to H.R. 3242, and I would ask that a copy of our
exchange of letters on this matter be included in the
Congressional Record during floor consideration.
Best regards,
Bill Thomas,
Chairman.
____
House of Representatives,
Committee on Agriculture,
Washington, DC, October 4, 2004.
Hon. William M. Thomas,
Chairman, House Committee on Ways and Means, Longworth House
Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: I would like to take this opportunity to
share with you a copy of H.R. 3242 as amended and passed by
the Committee on Agriculture. As you know, the Committee on
Ways and Means received an additional referral of this
legislation and I am respectfully requesting that this
legislation be discharged from your committee. This
legislation, sponsored by Representative Ose, would ensure an
abundant and affordable supply of nutritious fruits,
vegetables, and other speciality crops for the American
consumers and international markets by enhancing the
competitiveness of the United States-grown speciality crops,
and for other purposes.
As the committee of primary jurisdiction, on September 30,
2004, the Committee on Agriculture favorably reported this
legislation by an affirmative voice vote. As this bill
prepares to move to the floor I am asking for your discharge
to move this legislation forward.
This discharge in no way affects your jurisdiction over the
subject matter of the bill and it will not serve as precedent
for future referrals. In addition, should a conference on the
bill be necessary, I would support your request to have the
Committee on Ways and Means represented on the conference
committee. I would also include this letter and any response
in the bill report filled by the Committee on Agriculture.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter and look
forward to working with your committee in the future.
Sincerely,
Bob Goodlatte,
Chairman.
____
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
As my colleagues know, there are over 250 specialty crops produced
throughout the United States, from blueberries in Maine to pineapples
in Hawaii, potatoes in Idaho to pecans in Texas. In 2003, fruits,
vegetables and tree nuts earned U.S. farmers close to $30 billion in
sales at the farm gate alone.
As markets for fruits, vegetables and other specialty crops become
more global, it is becoming increasingly difficult for U.S. growers to
compete against heavily subsidized foreign producers in both domestic
and foreign markets.
H.R. 3242 has been a long-time coming and serves as a good first step
towards addressing the needs of the specialty crop grower through
Federal policy changes in both domestic and international trade issues.
These issues will no doubt continue to be discussed and debated as we
prepare for the 2007 farm bill. Writing a farm bill is truly an
exercise in balancing the equities between all commodity groups, and
when the committee begins its deliberations on the next farm bill, this
will provide a solid foundation upon which to construct the provisions
dealing with specialty crops.
Let me take this opportunity to thank my colleague, the gentleman
from Hawaii (Mr. Case) for his thoroughness and hard work to ensure
that the unique products from his State are included within the scope
of this bill.
I would also like to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Ose)
and the gentleman from California (Mr. Dooley) for their hard work and
attention with this endeavor. They have worked closely with the U.S.
specialty crop growers to identify various areas of Federal
agricultural policy that should be improved to promote the
competitiveness of this diverse industry throughout the United States.
It is important that we have a strong domestic specialty crop
industry. I encourage my colleagues to support H.R. 3242.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. OSE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. OSE. Mr. Speaker, I want to recognize the able assistance of
certain members, both majority and minority staffs, specifically Brent
Gattis and Elizabeth Parker on the majority staff, and Ms. Lisa Kelley
on the minority staff.
[[Page H8380]]
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the United States
speciality crop industry; an industry united behind a strong beginning
to what will eventually become great changes in the history of Federal
agricultural policy. I rise to support H.R. 3242 and a united specialty
crop industry.
This industry is comprised of fruits and vegetables, nuts and nursery
crops as well as many other agricultural niche markets. This industry
represents the largest farm gate value in the country, $58.7 billion
according to USDA's Economic Research Service. It also represents the
largest nutritional value in the Nation, providing over 60 percent of
the recommended daily servings for the United States. This industry
does not receive price support payments and is frequently subjected to
foreign price support mechanisms. Due to the industry's diverse array
of products, the specialty crop industry in the United States faces a
higher number of emerging pests and diseases every month than any other
market in the world. This problem is compounded by frequent trade
restrictions and the imposition of sanitary and phytosanitary barriers
placed on our commodities to protect other countries from the very
pests we are attempting to keep out of our borders. Despite these
sweeping problems, the growers, shippers, and packers remain committed
to participating in this vital agricultural sector.
For these reasons I introduced H.R. 3242, along with my colleague,
Cal Dooley. This bill seeks to expand on successful domestic policies,
not by undermining our neighbors here at home, but by beating back the
competition that seeks to crush our domestic producers. The concepts
contained within H.R. 3242 are about exporting product; the movement of
product out of the United States, to meet the global competition head
on. To liberalize trade outside the boundaries of the United States and
within, our domestic producers must be given the proper tools to
compete. A viable specialty crop industry is imperative to maintaining
the concept of liberalized trade.
The future of U.S. agriculture, both at home and abroad is entirely
dependent on the industry as a whole cooperating and communicating to
build successful Federal policies together. Fighting here at home
amongst ourselves diminishes the strength of a U.S. domestic policy and
makes us vulnerable to our competitors who view this as weakness. This
industry must learn to beat back competitors together, accomplish
objectives together, and ultimately take back the market share that has
been lost.
This is a small step, however significant to giving a sector of the
industry the opportunity to compete globally, export internationally,
and create or expand niche markets here at home. H.R. 3242 also
provides a venue for an exchange of ideas on different levels of
success in all areas of agriculture. This bill that I have offered here
today seeks to lay a foundation for success for all of our producers.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).
Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
I want to thank the sponsors of this bill, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Dooley) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Ose),
for introducing H.R. 3242, of which I am an original cosponsor.
I stand as the representative of the most productive agricultural
land in the world. It is in the State of California, and it is the
Central Coast Valley. We produce what this bill is talking about,
specialty crops.
Specialty crops are essentially those crops that we eat every day in
salads, the lettuce, the artichokes, the strawberries, the grapes. We
grow flowers. We grow everything that is not essentially in the
commodity world, and we grow that just with market forces; that is, if
there is not a good price for the crop, the farmer loses.
So what this bill does is bring the specialty crop, which frankly
last year made more money than the commodity crops did, and California
being the leading State, and almost all of the agriculture in
California is in specialty crops, it is a remarkably important bill for
our State and for all the people of the country who are in farming in
specialty crops, as the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) pointed
out.
Our specialty crops have no price supports. There are no direct
payments. There are no marketing loans. There are no countercyclical
payments. All we are asking for in this bill is for some help with
research money and market promotion.
I supported the bill in its original form, and I am a little
disappointed the way it has come to the floor. Nonetheless, it is a
step in the right direction.
The authorization for expenditure in this bill is $43 million,
compared to what is authorized to the commodity crops which is $12 to
$13 billion. So the message here, and I know that it is late at night,
but I hope that the agriculture community will see that we, for a long
time, have been a part of the big family of agriculture.
This is the time when we are raising the flag to say that the
specialty crops out there need some help, and I am, as appropriator,
looking forward to getting the support of everybody who supports this
bill, to getting money appropriated for this program and hopefully
moving in the direction ahead to raise the authorization to a much
higher standard and to appropriate a great deal of money. I hope that
we do not have a battle in agriculture, where we have to rob Peter to
pay Paul. Nonetheless, the growing markets in the world are in the
specialty crops, and as I said, the sales of specialty crops last year
exceeded that of commodity crops.
So I thank the members of the Committee on Agriculture for bringing
this bill to the floor. I look forward to working with them as an
appropriator, and it is a step in the right direction.
I thank very much the gentleman from California (Mr. Ose), and I
thank very much the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm).
Mr. OSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I am familiar with the marvelous bounty of the previous speaker's
district, and I understand his concern. I welcome his cosponsorship of
this bill because it has been an important part of our success.
I also want to make sure that all parties know the integral part that
the chairman and the ranking member played in getting this bill to this
point. They have been most accommodating in providing us with guidance
and insight as to the art of the possible, and I think we have achieved
that.
I know that everybody on the committee when we had markups spoke very
positively about the days ahead, as we work together within the
agricultural family so that all of our producers have the opportunity
to succeed.
Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers, and I reserve the balance
of my time.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time,
encourage the passage of H.R. 3242, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
General Leave
Mr. OSE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks
on H.R. 3242, the bill under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, the Specialty Crop Competitiveness Act
is a step in the right direction in promoting profitable agri-business
in the United States that incorporates responsible land use and levels
the playing field for producers.
Specialty Crop production is big business in Oregon, accounting for
$905 million a year in revenue for the State of Oregon. There are over
30,000 producers of specialty crops in Oregon, dozens of processing/
packing companies, and over 250 vineyards.
These specialty crops, which are not currently subsidized by the
Federal Government, stand in stark contrast to sugar, cotton, and the
other major crops that cost taxpayers billions of dollars each year and
hamper the economies of developing nations.
Oregon has been a pioneer in maintaining an urban growth boundary
that preserves valuable farmland that can be used to raise these niche
climate crops that have a growing demand, both domestically and
internationally, Not only does this benefit the Oregon economy, but our
world famous pears, wines, berries, hazelnuts, and other specialty
crops bring communities together in farmers market settings that
benefit 64 communities in Oregon.
I urge my colleagues to usher in a new era of responsible crop
production and vote for H.R. 3242.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3242, the
Specialty Crop Competitiveness Act of 2004.
The specialty crop sector is comprised of a diverse group of
commodities produced across the Nation and is a vital portion of our
agricultural community. Because of their hard work, Americans have
access to a healthful and wholesome diet which includes fruits and
vegetables. The 6th District of Virginia, which I represent, is home to
a wide variety of these
[[Page H8381]]
producers. They are part of the larger specialty crop sector, which
makes the United States the second largest importer and exporter of
fruits, nuts, vegetables and other horticultural products.
I would like to take the opportunity to commend Mr. Ose of California
for his commitment to the fruit and vegetable sector. His hard work
with the industry, as well as his colleagues here in Congress, has been
fundamental to moving this bill forward. Mr. Ose has diligently
represented his constituents and I am sure they will miss his
leadership upon his retirement.
H.R. 3242 is the culmination of many months of hard work in
developing a consensus document. While the markup of this legislation
proceeded quite smoothly, it did outline some issues that need
additional attention.
However, it is clear from the quality of the discussion among
Committee Members, that we understand the importance of the specialty
crop sector in production agriculture.
I believe this bill represents a first step in what will undoubtedly
be a lengthy conversation leading up to the next Farm Bill. Some issues
in this bill will likely be revisited as we proceed forward with this
process. For example, I still have some reservations about the block
grant system and whether or not it is the best way to address the long
term goals of the agriculture community. However, I remain open to
further consideration of this point and I believe this is a good faith
effort to begin the conversation about improving the competitiveness of
specialty crop producers in the context of the Farm Bill.
Again, I'd like to thank Mr. Ose for his commitment to this complex
effort and would like to reiterate my support for passage of H.R. 3242.
Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker I rise in support of H.R. 3242, the
``Specialty Crop Competitiveness Act''.
While I remain concerned about the funding levels--my colleagues
from California, Mr. Ose and Mr. Dooley, must be commended for their
dedication and hard work over the past year on this legislation to
bring the specialty crop industry long overdue recognition from
Congress.
I especially want to mention my strong support for provisions in the
bill that address methyl bromide use by specialty crop growers.
Continued use of methyl bromide as a fumigant is of utmost importance
to a number of crops in my district and throughout California and I
greatly appreciate the House Agriculture Committee bringing this issue
to the forefront of the debate.
As you may know there are over 250 specialty crops produced in the
United States and the industry as a whole is vitally important to the
continued prosperity of our farm economy. In 2002, specialty crops had
a collective value of nearly $52 billion or about 53 percent of the
value of all agricultural crops. Their farm-gate value continues to
rise as growers throughout the United States consistently produce the
most abundant, highest quality crops of their kind in the world.
Currently however, specialty crops do not enjoy the same support
from the Federal Government as do traditional ``program'' crops. Their
main source of government assistance is not through marketing loans,
direct payments, or counter-cyclical payments but instead they are
supported--albeit in much smaller proportions--through programs like
the Market Access Program, conservation programs like EQUIP, and
through research funding.
The honest truth is that the majority of the specialty crop industry
does not want a traditional subsidy program as cotton, corn, rice and
others enjoy. Instead, they simply desire a seat at the table and
recognition for their hard work and contribution to the farm economy.
H.r. 3242 does just that, it improves upon previous Farm Bill programs
aimed at specialty crops and proposes a reinvigorated block grant
program that will allow each State Department of Agriculture to apply
for, and administer, marketing assistance programs tailored
specifically to the needs of their respective crops.
This legislation could not come at any better time. As many of you
know, specialty crop growers across the United States are currently in
the midst of an industry crisis. They are facing a number of challenges
in international trade, caused by lack of market access, rapidly
increasing import competition and efforts by our trading partners to
keep our products out of their markets. Additionally, our foreign
competitors routinely employ considerably cheaper labor and liberally
use pesticides that are banned here at home.
In my home State of California, the situation worsens. Growers are
constantly dealing with new environmental regulations, which often
require costly compliance measures such as purchasing new equipment and
machinery or applying for Federal and State permits. Furthermore, the
cost of land, water, labor and pesticides are significantly higher in
California compared with other larger specialty crop States. It is no
wonder that prime agricultural land is disappearing at such a rapid
rate, right before our eyes.
H.R. 3242 will finally direct Federal support to specialty crop
growers in a proactive manner, to promote consumption of specialty
crops at home and abroad and increase the competitiveness of growers in
the aggressive global market.
One of the key components to H.R. 3242 is Title 1, the Specialty Crop
Block Grant program. In 2001, Congress approved a block grant program
from which California received roughly $64 million and one of the first
things I did as a member of Congress was to convene a forum of
California's specialty crop industry to determine how the program was
implemented and what the benefits were. The results were outstanding--
milk vending machines were placed in schools, the California Grown
program was a success, research programs for pest disease and
prevention were completed and countless other important programs were
funded for the first time in decades. Block grants worked in California
and they will work in the United States but they only work if we
adequately fund them.
There is no doubt in my mind that my colleague from California, Mr.
Ose, fought the good fight to retain the full authorization included in
the original Specialty Crop Competitiveness Act but the bill we are
voting on tonight falls pathetically short of what is needed for this
industry. The original H.R. 3242 allocated $470 million for the
specialty crop block grant program, a number that may seem substantial
at first but that one that is dwarfed by the billions of dollars spent
annually on program crops. It is unfortunate that important legislation
such as H.R. 3242 was not adequately funded and I remain committed to
rectifying this inequity in the future.
Regardless of my concerns, I will be support H.R. 3242 tonight. I
firmly believe that H.R. 3242 is an important first step in
acknowledging the strength and important of our Nation's specialty crop
industry and I urge my fellow members of the House of Representative to
join me in approving this important legislation.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3242, the
Specialty Crop Competitiveness Act of 2004, which is intended to
improve Federal agricultural policy in order to ensure that American
consumers continue to have access to an abundant and affordable supply
of nutritious fruits, vegetables, nuts, and other speciality crops. I
thank Mr. Ose, Mr. Dooley, and House Agriculture Committee Chairman
Goodlatte for their efforts to develop this legislation.
This legislation is important to my constituents in the 22nd
Congressional District of California, who collectively produce
agricultural products with a farm gate value in excess of $3 billion,
with specialty crops accounting for more than two-thirds of that value.
Unlike other crops and many of their foreign competitors, U.S.
specialty crop growers do not receive direct government support despite
the fact that they face increased competition from imports; since 1995,
imports of fruits, vegetables, and nuts have increased 80 percent, from
$4.6 billion to $7.4 billion in 2002.
It is important to note that during the same period of time, while
U.S. exports of fruits, vegetables, and nuts have increased since 1995,
they have only increased 17 percent, from $5.2 billion to $6 billion.
Moreover, U.S. producers continue to encounter sanitary and
phytosanitary (SPS) barriers when they seek to export their goods to
foreign markets. Accordingly, in my capacity as Chairman of the
Committee on Ways and Means, I am extremely interested in efforts to
open and expand foreign markets through the reduction of SPS barriers
and the negotiation of multilateral and bilateral trade agreements.
H.R. 3242 seeks to assist U.S. specialty crop growers by authorizing
funding that could be used by State departments of agriculture to
create consumer demand for specialty crops, enhance food safety
efforts, and to support production-related research. H.R. 3242 also
seeks to help U.S. producers break down SPS barriers and reduce the
number of pending export petitions for agriculture goods. With regard
to those pending export petitions, I look forward to working with
Chairman Goodlatte to ensure that the process is more transparent so
that Congress can enhance its ability to conduct oversight.
H.R. 3242 is strongly supported by over thirty organizations,
including the Western Growers Association, Wine Institute, California
Table Grape Commission, California Farm Bureau Federation, California
Winegrape Growers Association, United Fresh Fruit and Vegetable
Association, and Sunkist Growers. I encourage my colleagues to support
H.R. 3242.
Mr. CASE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong support for
H.R. 3242, the Specialty Crops Competitiveness Act of 2004. I am a
proud co-sponsor of this bipartisan bill, and I congratulate its
author, Congressman Ose, and his staff for this significant
accomplishment.
[[Page H8382]]
I represent a rural agricultural district spread over the 7 inhabited
islands of Hawai`i, where all of our crops are specialty crops. Except
for sugarcane, the great majority of Hawai`i's crops are not grown in
any other State, nor are they the traditional Farm Bill ``program
crops.'' Therefore, programs to assist Hawai`i's specialty crop
producers of crops like pineapple, tropical flowers, coffee, algae,
cacao, and vanilla are very limited. And even though we have crop
insurance programs for only two crops--macadamia nuts and nursery crops
(fewer than any other State)--we are not designated as one of the
States underserved by crop insurance programs.
For these and other reasons, my State receives less Federal support
for agriculture as a percentage of the value of its agriculture than
any other State. At the same time, we face unique challenges due to our
distance from markets, quarantine requirements, and a transition from
plantation to small-scale diversified agriculture. This transition has
been extremely painful for many who traditionally were employed in good
agricultural jobs in sugar or pineapple as well as for our rural island
economies. I requested assignment to the House Agriculture Committee
during my first full term in Congress to do what I can to enhance the
future of agriculture in my State and to see that my State receives its
fair share of assistance.
For this reason, I come to the floor today to extend a sincere mahalo
to Chairman Goodlatte and Ranking Member Stenholm and their staffs for
their assistance in ensuring that Hawai`i's specialty crops, from
coffee to ginger root to kava, will be in fact be covered by this
worthy bill.
Mr. OSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Ose) that the House suspend the rules
and pass the bill, H.R. 3242, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________