[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 15]
[House]
[Pages 21261-21266]
[From the U.S. 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.

[[Page 21262]]

       (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 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;

[[Page 21263]]

       ``(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 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

[[Page 21264]]

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. 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.
  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.

[[Page 21265]]

  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 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,

[[Page 21266]]

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.
  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.

                          ____________________