[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 17]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 23503-23504]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




              SPECIALTY CROPS COMPETITIVENESS ACT OF 2004

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                         HON. CALVIN M. DOOLEY

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, October 6, 2004

  Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 
3242, the Specialty

[[Page 23504]]

Crops Competitiveness Act of 2004, albeit with reservations about the 
scaled down version of the substitute bill that comes before us today.
  When I joined Representative Doug Ose last year in introducing H.R. 
3242, it was a natural reflection of my longstanding interest in a 
prosperous and competitive specialty crops sector.
  U.S. farm policy has long overlooked the importance of specialty 
crops, despite the fact that these non-subsidized crops account for the 
majority of crop production in this country. Instead, U.S. farm policy 
has tended to focus on so-called ``program'' crops, such as cotton, 
rice, sugar, peanuts, wheat, corn, oilseeds, feed grains, and others, 
which account for less than half of domestic production.
  H.R. 3242 was introduced not to bring fruits, vegetables, tree nuts, 
and other horticultural products into the category of ``program 
commodities'' but instead to focus federal attention and resources on 
the problems facing this segment of U.S. agriculture. The bill as 
introduced included various regulatory reforms as well as a modest 
level of federal dollars to invest in non-market-distorting ways in the 
competitiveness of the U.S. specialty crop sector.
  As the lead Democrat sponsor of H.R. 3242, however, I am very 
disappointed that the version of the bill that moved out of the House 
Agriculture Committee and is before us today is significantly scaled 
down from the original bill. In particular, the federal funding 
provided by this substitute bill has gone from a mandatory spending 
level of $508 million per year for five years, to a discretionary 
authorization of only $54 million per year that is further subject to 
annual appropriations.
  This is a far cry from the level of federal commitment to the 
specialty crop sector that is warranted.
  Specialty crops have an annual farm-gate value of $52 billion and 
receive no federal subsidies. Program crops, on the other hand, have a 
farm-gate value of only $48 billion. Yet the program commodities 
received federal subsidies in the amount of $12-13 billion, the 
equivalent of 27 percent of their farm-gate value.
  This bill does not change the fact that producers of specialty crops 
receive no federal subsidy payments, and instead rely solely on the 
market for their income. No new federal price supports, direct 
payments, marketing loans, or counter-cyclical payments are created in 
this bill.
  A serious federal commitment to this sector, however, requires a 
serious level of federal dollars.
  The bulk of federal expenditures under H.R. 3242 would go to a block 
grant program that would distribute federal dollars to interested 
states for research, marketing, promotion, and other competitiveness-
enhancing programs for their specialty crop industries. These funds are 
designed to increase consumer awareness and demand for specialty crop 
products and otherwise strengthen U.S. producers' ability to supply a 
safe, nutritious and quality product to both domestic and foreign 
markets.
  Unfortunately, the bill as amended drastically reduced the federal 
commitment to this block grant proposal, from $470 million in mandatory 
spending down to $44.5 million in discretionary spending.
  During the Agriculture Committee's markup of this bill, I attempted 
to restore merely half of the mandatory funds provided under the 
original bill for the block grant program. In order to keep the 
legislation revenue-neutral from a budgetary standpoint, I offered two 
separate alternative offsets--one based on a small, pro rata reduction 
in direct fixed payments to program commodity producers, and the other 
based on a bipartisan payment limitations proposal pending in the 
Senate (S. 667).
  My amendment to finance the cost of a mandatory $220 million per year 
block grant program for specialty crops would have reduced the annual 
federal subsidies received by program crops by merely 1.7 percent. As a 
percent of program crop gross income, this represents a 0.36 percent 
reduction. Yet even this minuscule reduction encountered strong 
resistance by those farm and commodity organizations benefiting from 
these federal subsidies today.
  The inequitable distribution of federal expenditures between program 
commodities and non-subsidized specialty crops must be changed. The 
United States can no longer afford to short-change the majority of its 
crop producers who rely on market forces--not federal program 
payments--to drive their income. The fact that the current farm bill, 
enacted in 2002, does not expire until 2007 is no excuse for not 
reallocating a small portion of federal expenditures by less than 2 
percent.
  Some of my colleagues seek to support the specialty crop sector 
without simultaneously disturbing the enormous benefits enjoyed by the 
program commodities. However, federal dollars are scarce resources and 
a more equitable distribution of these limited resources is long 
overdue. I hope my colleagues will eventually agree.
  In the meantime, I urge adoption of this legislation today and hope 
that it will lay an effective foundation for a stronger federal 
investment in our specialty crop sector in future years.

                          ____________________