[House Hearing, 108 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
PROBLEMS FACING THE SPECIALTY CROP INDUSTRY
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY POLICY, NATURAL
RESOURCES AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS
of the
COMMITTEE ON
GOVERNMENT REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
DECEMBER 12, 2003
__________
Serial No. 108-151
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/congress/house
http://www.house.gov/reform
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
94-067 WASHINGTON : DC
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM
TOM DAVIS, Virginia, Chairman
DAN BURTON, Indiana HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut TOM LANTOS, California
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
JOHN L. MICA, Florida PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
DOUG OSE, California DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
RON LEWIS, Kentucky DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts
TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
CHRIS CANNON, Utah DIANE E. WATSON, California
ADAM H. PUTNAM, Florida STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
EDWARD L. SCHROCK, Virginia CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California
JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma C.A. ``DUTCH'' RUPPERSBERGER,
NATHAN DEAL, Georgia Maryland
CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania Columbia
MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio JIM COOPER, Tennessee
JOHN R. CARTER, Texas ------
WILLIAM J. JANKLOW, South Dakota BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee (Independent)
Peter Sirh, Staff Director
Melissa Wojciak, Deputy Staff Director
Rob Borden, Parliamentarian
Teresa Austin, Chief Clerk
Philip M. Schiliro, Minority Staff Director
Subcommittee on Energy Policy, Natural Resources and Regulatory Affairs
DOUG OSE, California, Chairman
WILLIAM J. JANKLOW, South Dakota JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut TOM LANTOS, California
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
CHRIS CANNON, Utah DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland
NATHAN DEAL, Georgia JIM COOPER, Tennessee
CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan
Ex Officio
TOM DAVIS, Virginia HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
Dan Skopec, Staff Director
Melanie Tory, Professional Staff Member
anthony Grossi, Clerk
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on December 12, 2003................................ 1
Statement of:
Kawamura, A.G., Secretary of the California Department of
Food and Agriculture....................................... 32
Zanger, Joseph, member, board of directors, California Farm
Bureau Federation; Jim Bogart, president, Grower-Shipper
Vegetable Association of Central California; John D'Arrigo,
chairman, Western Growers; and Robert Nielsen, vice
president, Tanimura & Antle and United Fresh Fruit and
Vegetable Association...................................... 51
Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:
Bogart, Jim, president, Grower-Shipper Vegetable Association
of Central California, prepared statement of............... 67
D'Arrigo, John, chairman, Western Growers, prepared statement
of......................................................... 79
Farr, Hon. Sam, a Representative in Congress from the State
of California, information concerning Monterey County...... 8
Kawamura, A.G., Secretary of the California Department of
Food and Agriculture, prepared statement of................ 36
Nielsen, Robert, vice president, Tanimura & Antle and United
Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Association, prepared statement
of......................................................... 95
Ose, Hon. Doug, a Representative in Congress from the State
of California, prepared statement of....................... 4
Zanger, Joseph, member, board of directors, California Farm
Bureau Federation, prepared statement of................... 53
PROBLEMS FACING THE SPECIALTY CROP INDUSTRY
----------
FRIDAY, DECEMBER 12, 2003
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Energy Policy, Natural Resources
and Regulatory Affairs,
Committee on Government Reform,
Salinas, CA.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in
the Alisal Room of The National Steinbeck Center, 1 Main
Street, Salinas, CA, Hon. Doug Ose (chairman of the
subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representative Ose.
Also present: Representative Farr.
Staff present: Melanie Tory, professional staff member;
Yier Shi, press secretary; and Anthony Grossi, clerk.
Mr. Ose. Good morning.
Welcome to today's hearing by the Subcommittee on Energy
Policy, Natural Resources and Regulatory Affairs on the subject
of problems facing the specialty crop industry.
I want to ask unanimous consent to welcome to our panel
today my good friend and colleague from this part of the
country, Sam Farr. Without objection he will be an able and
welcome participant in today's hearing.
I ask unanimous consent to waive the subcommittee's quorum
requirement. Without objection, so ordered.
We're here today to examine problems facing the U.S.
specialty crop industry, not only here in California, but
across the country.
Historically, U.S. agricultural policy has focused almost
exclusively on program crops, such as wheat, corn, cotton, and
rice. The result is that growers of program crops received
about $20 billion annually in Federal price supports and other
Federal assistance programs.
Conversely, specialty crops, which include fruits, nuts,
vegetables, forage crops, flowers, and wine grapes, do not
receive price supports and receive only a small fraction of the
Federal assistance programs for agricultural purposes. This is
in spite of the fact that specialty crops contribute more
annual revenue to the agricultural sector: $58.7 billion
compared to the $47.9 billion for program crops. Additionally,
specialty crops are often subjected to unfair international
trade practices that limit market access, and effectively
hinder genuine free trade.
U.S. specialty crop growers take pride in being considered
the true ``free traders'' in today's global markets. Yet, many
are concerned with the failure of the Federal Government to
adequately ensure a level playing field for them in the face of
increasing globalization. One example of this is that Japanese
tariffs on U.S. fresh vegetables are an astounding 64 percent.
In contrast, the United States only has a 5.9 percent tariff on
fresh vegetables imported from Japan and countries of the
European Union.
Foreign support is staggering for specialty crop growers in
nations of the European Union. Currently, there are annual EU
price supports of over $2 billion for tomato growers, $1.9
billion for apple growers, and $500 million for cucumber
growers.
In addition to facing unfair trading practices abroad, U.S.
specialty crop producers also must contend with sometimes
inadequate regulatory and trading policies at home. For
example, sanitary and phytosanitary [SPS] regulatory standards
for U.S. imports, issued by the Department of Agriculture's
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service [APHIS], do not
provide appropriate protection for U.S. growers or the U.S.
food supply. Additionally, imports of specialty crops into the
United States have increased sharply over the last 7 years,
while market access globally has continued to diminish as
mature, foreign economies flood U.S. markets with cheaper,
subsidized products. Unfortunately, U.S. trade negotiators are
considering an agreement with Australia that, if approved by
Congress, might flood the U.S. market with foreign specialty
crops, such as wine and table grapes, canned fruit, peaches,
apricots, pears, and fruit mixes, and may cause agricultural
pest and disease outbreaks in the United States because of
inadequate sanitary and phytosanitary standards. Such impacts,
obviously, would be devastating to the U.S. specialty crop
industry.
In my district, and interestingly enough in nearly every
other agricultural district in the country, specialty crop
operations are struggling to remain competitive in light of
these new challenges. Think about that. There are 50 States and
3 territories, virtually every State and territory including
Alaska, surprisingly, to one degree or another produces
specialty crops. What we're trying to do is address the
challenges that those people face. To do that on October 30,
2003, I introduced, with my colleague from the Central Valley,
Cal Dooley, H.R. 3242, the Specialty Crop Competitiveness Act.
My bill is designed to address all areas of the industry,
including both fresh and processed fruits, nuts, vegetables,
floral, and wine grapes. Additionally, it includes needed
Federal financial assistance and additional Federal focus on
U.S. specialty crops.
Today, we will examine the domestic and international trade
policies and practices that reduce the U.S. specialty crop
industry's ability to be competitive in today's expanding
global market. We will shed light on the industry's problems
and demonstrate that legislative and regulatory changes are
needed in order to moderate adverse impacts.
Throughout this administration, the President has
aggressively pursued increased international trade agreements.
The agricultural sector has traditionally been a strong
proponent of free trade and has provided the necessary support
in Congress to ensure passage of this free trade agenda. And,
while historically the specialty crop industry has supported
the efforts on international trade to reduce trade barriers and
increase market access, there's a direct connection, I think,
between continued support of that agenda and the ability to
open of these foreign markets and provide a greater focus for
Federal assistance.
Today's witness panels are august. I am pleased to welcome
the following individuals who will testify as time proceeds.
First, the new Secretary of the California Department of
Food and Agriculture, Mr. A.G. Kawamura will be on our first
panel.
Our second panel will be composed of Mr. Joseph Zanger, a
member of the board of directors of the California Farm Bureau
Federation; Jim Bogart, president of the Grower-Shipper
Vegetable Association of Central California; Mr. John D'Arrigo,
chairman of Western Growers; and, Mr. Robert Nielsen, vice
president of Tanimura & Antle.
I do want to welcome everybody here. And, as I said at the
outset, we are pleased particularly to have the company of
Congressman Sam Farr from this district. I'd be happy to
recognize him for the purpose of an opening statement.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Doug Ose follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4067.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4067.002
Mr. Farr. Thank you very much, Chairman Ose. I'm really
delighted that you've come to this district and to have this
hearing, the first ever of its type, and certainly I think the
first hearing in the Steinbeck Center.
And, I want to thank my constituents for coming to this
hearing, too. Because I think what we get out of this is a good
learning session, a good educational opportunity.
I've passed out to several people, staff particularly and
to you, Mr. Chairman, a copy of Monterey County's crop report
for 2002. And it's interesting how many times I reach for this
in Washington to try to explain to people what specialty crops
are all about.
When I was on the Ag Committee, the authorizing committee
and members would go around the room and talk about their
districts and why they're on the Ag Committee, most of the
members were there because of one crop in their State. And, I'd
say in Monterey County we have 85 crops. And, they wouldn't
believe me. I mean, 85 is more than any other State in the
United States produces, and we have it just in this county,
with the exception of the State of California.
So, the crop report points out that this is almost a $3
billion industry here. We have 41 crops that are over $1
million in sales. And, some things that you wouldn't think of
when you think about specialty crops. Everybody knows the
Salinas Valley for its sort of the lettuce bowl of the world,
but they don't think of raspberries in this county being a $38
million crop, or that cilantro is a $4 million crop, or bok
choy is a $3.2 million crop, or that squash is a $1 million
crop in this county. These are just examples of what we mean by
specialty crops.
And, where do these crops go? Well, they go to 19 different
countries plus the EU, which is 22 countries in the EU.
It's an international business here. It's about all the
issues that we deal with in Congress on imports/exports
regulation. But what is unique about it is this is the most
productive agricultural region of the world, in all due respect
to the San Joaquin Valley, because we have more variety here,
more difference than the Valley. And, this area does not
receive the kinds of supports that some of the crops in the
Valley receive, nor the water support that the Valley receives.
In essence, the Salines Valley represents the best of free
market enterprise and agriculture, I think, in the world.
As you stated in your opening comments, we have been kind
of short changed on the big scale of things, especially crops
and as pointed out to somebody before, it used to be called
minor crops. Everybody thought well it's minor, it doesn't make
much money. It isn't big. Well, it is big. It's huge. It's
very, very important because frankly these are the things that
everybody eats. And, if you look on all the health charts of
what you should be eating, whether in schools or hospitals or
institutions of what the Government tells you are of
nutritional value, this is the place that's producing that
nutritional value.
So, these crops are absolutely essential to the well being
of the human race and well being of America. And, I think that
your hearing is giving it the focus and certainly the bill that
I've co-sponsored with you and Mr. Dooley, the attention that
the industry needs. I really want to thank you from the bottom
of my heart for taking time out of your recess here to come
Salinas and to come to particularly, we're very, very proud of
this building right here. I think this is trying to teach
people with the ag museum next door and certainly probably one
of the best known authors in the world, John Steinbeck who grew
up here in Salinas, to be able to present the combination of
land and people in this place and what we're all about. So
thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Ose. You bet. Would you like to introduce in the
record?
Mr. Farr. Yes, I would like to enter into the record.
Mr. Ose. So ordered.
Mr. Farr. Thank you.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4067.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4067.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4067.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4067.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4067.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4067.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4067.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4067.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4067.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4067.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4067.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4067.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4067.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4067.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4067.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4067.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4067.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4067.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4067.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4067.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4067.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4067.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4067.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4067.026
Mr. Ose. Now, just for everybody's educational background
here, the way this committee works is this is a subcommittee of
the Government Reform Committee. In the Government Reform
Committee we swear everybody in; that is just standard
practice. There are no exceptions. If you testify in front of
Government Reform, we swear you in.
Government Reform takes a record of this. We share it with
all of the other committees in Congress.
We have two panels today. During our first panel, as I
said, Secretary Kawamura will be testifying. The second panel
will be the remainder of the witnesses.
We have received everybody's testimony, and I have gone
through it. My staff's gone through it. I'm sure Congressman
Farr has looked at it, and his people have looked at it.
We provide 5 minutes for our witnesses to summarize their
testimony. I've got a clock here. There's a green, a yellow and
a red light on there. The green, obviously, means keep going.
The yellow means you've got a minute and the red says the door
underneath your chair is about to open.
If you could summarize your testimony so we can get to
questions, I would appreciate it. I know Congressman Farr is
time constrained. I know many of our witnesses are time
constrained. We will try to move through this expeditiously. We
do have some questions that we have thought about in Washington
preparatory to this hearing, so we are going to go through
those.
The questioning after the testimony will go back and forth
between Congressman Farr and me. To the extent that we have
questions, we are going to keep asking them. If there is stuff
you want to offer extemporaneously, I would hope you do so. If
you have questions about how this works, that would be great;
if you want to ask those as you come up here do not be bashful.
We are making a record here and the record will remain open
for 10 days.
After we get through the testimony there is likely to be
questions that come to mind that we would like to submit to our
witnesses, so we will be giving those to you in writing in a
subsequent period of time, and we would appreciate a timely
response.
And, with that, we are going to proceed. So, Mr. Secretary,
if you would please rise and raise your right hand.
[Witness sworn.]
Mr. Ose. Let the record show the witness answered in the
affirmative.
I am particularly pleased today to welcome the Secretary of
the California Department of Food and Agriculture, Mr. A.G.
Kawamura. Welcome, Mr. Secretary.
STATEMENT OF A.G. KAWAMURA, SECRETARY OF THE CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE
Mr. Kawamura. Thank you, Chairman. Welcome, Congressman
Farr. And,thank you very much for allowing me to have this
opportunity to speak to you today.
The famous writer/poet Carl Sanburg made a wonderful
statement years ago which I think is apropos for today, and
that is when a nation forgets its hard beginning, it is
beginning to decay. And, clearly here in California we have
been struggling with that forgetfulness at the Department of
Agriculture. We are really concerned that the infrastructure
which the Department of Agriculture represents and the industry
itself of agriculture which is here in California is being
taken for granted and has been forgotten. And, it is clear that
this nation, which has such an abundance of food, so many
resources, is suffering from a small case of amnesia in
remembering how important the domestic food supply really is
and what that contributes to a nation's economy, well being and
security.
In saying that, it is also very interesting that this
Subcommittee on Energy Policy, Natural Resources and Regulatory
Affairs is asking us to talk about the specialty crop industry
because as we all know food, just like water, just like
petroleum, food and fiber is stored energy. If you would,
stored sunlight. It is something that the State of California
is able to produce on an enormous basis with the blessing of
all the resources we have here. And, it is very critical to
recognize that we are standing at a moment of decision where we
are about to export that capacity and ability to produce this
enormous food supply, this enormous energy supply, to other
countries.
Seeing that, I would like to say that at this point in time
in an enormously complicated world, this is 2003, it's not
1963, it's not 1973. In 2003, the global competition, the
exchange of technology is enormous. Formerly countries that we
would not imagine being competitors with us are overnight
turning into competitors and our ability to compete in this
complex world is compromised without some kind of recognition
that we need help. The State of California is making that turn
and is ready to start to invest again, we hope, in this
infrastructure which allows agriculture to be here. And, we are
certainly hoping that the Federal Government then is able to
recognize the timeliness of investment into that same
infrastructure and the same support that would come to the
specialty crops industries.
I think one of the things that many people forget is that
all of us, and I am a third generation farmer from an urban
area in southern California, who are engaged in the activity of
agriculture and even though I have a new hat today I still am
in the agriculture business as a farmer, all of us do so, it is
a voluntary investment of our personal wealth to be involved in
business and particularly agriculture. And, when that voluntary
investment becomes so risky, so full of liability, so full of
regulation that we cannot see the return on our investment and
it becomes very clear that maybe that does not work for us, we
will pick up those tractors and leave to another State. We will
pick up those tractors and leave to another country. And,
again, the timeliness of this hearing then is a chance for all
of us to voice our extreme concern that we have gotten to that
point commodity by commodity where different players within
industry are beginning to and are ready to pick up and leave
unless we do some enormous changes of support.
The global economy is not going to change overnight as far
as making things better. We recognize that we have to be able
to add value to our crops. We recognize that we have to be able
to reinvent ourselves. This kind of support for specialty crops
then becomes one of the critical components to allow our
industry to retool itself, to reinvent itself, to spread the
word, and I will talk about that later in my remarks, about the
different, wonderful opportunities that the global environment
gives us.
Certainly, we can talk about the global threats. I think we
all recognize those. But in looking at the different
opportunities, we know that we are replaceable suppliers of a
food supply. We would like to be not replaceable suppliers, but
the contributors and the partners in a food supply that is not
only dynamic but is contributing to an enormous boom for the
State of California.
We talked about a California renaissance, and that
renaissance cannot take place without a renaissance in
agriculture in the State of California as well. That being
said, the Specialty Crop Competitiveness Act 3242 is one of
those things that can help us get to that point where we go
from a $30 billion industry with 350 commodities in this State
to $40, $50 billion. How does that happen? The simple math of
looking at consumption as an optimistic point in the future.
Many of us have heard about this five a day program, eating
five healthy servings of specialty crops. Currently the numbers
show that the U.S. population eats three servings a day. If we
go from three to five servings, that is a 60 percent increase
in consumption.
Evidently, the Canadians are at seven servings a day. If we
go from three to seven servings, that's 130 percent increase in
consumption. And, evidently the French eat 10 servings a day.
If we go from 3 to 10 servings, that is a 330 percent increase
in consumption. That would be a sucking sound that would be
very hard for us farmers to fill, but it would be a nice
challenge for us to do it, would it not? And, it would
certainly raise all boats within the agriculture industry.
Currently, the benefits of the previous specialty crops
block grants that came to the State of California have been
judiciously and wisely invested in different aspects of the
California economy. I will just talk briefly of a few of them.
The clearest example, of course, is part of this wonderful
museum that we are having this hearing in. This is a chance
where this museum is able to educate the public about the
importance of agriculture. And, we were a small part of that,
and we thank the wonderful supporters of this museum for making
this legacy here in the Salinas Valley.
The California International Market Promotion for
Agriculture Program [CIMPA], provides 34 agricultural business
and grants to help the international marketplace.
The Western Institute for Food Safety and Security in a
very complex world that has many, many dangers including SARS,
West Nile Virus and all the other plagues and problems that can
come into the State, that is an institute with the task of
looking into the highest level of identification and detection
of diseases in plant invasions.
The Nutrition grants, which we are all hopeful that this
State and the rest of the country will be involved with, is a
critical aspect. Our nation currently has an epidemic in
obesity and childhood diabetes. That is driven by a poor diet.
We recognize that fast healthy food is easily possible. Fast
healthy food means using a lot of specialty crops, and we are
looking forward to that.
We will ignore the drink that you are drinking.
The LEAF program which is Linking Education, Activity and
Food is a wonderful example of those block grants at work.
The California Minor Crops Council received a grant to
develop successful tools for effective and environmentally
friendly pest and disease exclusion practices and controls, a
sustainable movement in the direction that this State and this
country surely is moving toward. Those are the kinds of
assistance that we need.
The momentum created by these 2001 block grants then is an
excellent start, but it is only a beginning. We are so very
encouraged to think that around this country the specialty
crops production States, which basically are all the States in
one way or another, can look again at a different way of seeing
agriculture in the year 2003.
Again, the forgetfulness of not recognizing that
agriculture is a pillar of support, as the Homeland Security
Task Force has recognized that the agricultural system, food
and fiber system, is a critical infrastructure of this country.
Certainly this is a movement in the right direction. And, the
funding for these programs would be a wise investment.
With that, I would like to close and again say thank you to
Chairman Ose, and for the entire delegation that recognizes
these important aspects of agriculture today in 2003.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kawamura follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4067.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4067.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4067.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4067.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4067.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4067.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4067.033
Mr. Ose. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
It is orange juice. It is orange juice. I just want you to
know that. It is orange juice.
All right. This is how we are going to proceed here. Again,
Congressman Farr and I will alternate back and forth asking
questions. To the extent that you have the answers or you can
come up with the answers and you can share them with us, that's
great. If you need to consult with your staff and get back to
us, that's fine, too. We're keeping track of the questions we
ask either both in the record and otherwise. And, those
questions that need further input certainly we'd be happy to
take them in writing.
So with that, Mr. Secretary, on page 2 of your testimony
you state that the block grant program and the Economic
Assistance Act of 2001 has been successful here in California.
I think your testimony talks about the wine grape deal. In
fact, you even list them; there's six or seven you list in your
testimony.
I specifically want to ask in addition to the Buy
California Initiative that you talked about in your testimony,
what additional plans do you think need to be considered at the
State level for increasing or implementing the increase in
marketing and the promotion and consumption of specialty crops?
Are there additional things that you have on the boards that
you can share with us?
Mr. Kawamura. Our plan is, again, to build on the successes
of what we see happening with the current programs. We have a
new, as you know, a very exciting Governor that is dedicated to
the health of children. And, it is interesting that a healthy
child has to be a well nourished child. We are very hopeful at
this point that the Governor, and we have had some discussions
with the Governor and staff, that message is a natural message
to Buy California, to be involved with California and health
and eat those five a day or seven a day, nine a day servings
and get away from those soft drinks and things that are so
tough on the health of our kids.
Mr. Ose. Sure it is. All right. Thank you for that.
Title IV of H.R. 3242 talks about specialty crop research
and the like. Would it be possible or do you have plans under
this grant program where some of the funds would go to research
or would you reply on the authorization within this particular
title only?
Mr. Kawamura. Certainly, as you know, many times we find
ourselves in the middle of a crises similar to the recent
Pierce's Disease. And, you would always want to leave yourself
some option to be able to redirect your funding to the
emergency of the day. In saying that, there's a large section
in the act to look and focus on the very real problems of pest
exclusion and that the fact that, again, California is the
portal to the rest of the United States going back to my
opening statement about the forgetfulness of how important
agriculture is or how important are those hard beginnings.
We have learned a lot of lessons about pest exclusion over
10,000 years of human history or more, especially in California
we clearly have well documented studies showing that pest
exclusion prevention is your best dollar spent. And, as these
new technologies and new sciences come about that we are able
to do so even more sustainably than in the past, even more
effective than in the past, these are the kind of focuses for
technology that we will need. In addition to that, using that
same technology and study to make sure that any trade barriers
that may exist are in other countries that we are able to put
those dollars to focus to open those markets that currently are
closed because of scientific technological trade barriers. That
is another focus that we hope to keep open and focus on as they
arise.
Mr. Ose. I want to dwell on this pest and disease exclusion
issue for a moment. As I understand it, we have spent in
California nearly $200 million in two particular instances
dealing with pests--$22 million in one instance and $177
million in the other instance--is that right? Some of that
money has come from the State, some has come from the Federal
Government. From where I sit, the exclusion of pests or disease
from entering our country is a Federal responsibility. Do you
share that view?
Mr. Kawamura. I absolutely do share that view, because it
is just the history of this United States, actually before the
formation of the United States. We understand that the bugs and
the diseases and the pests don't understand borders. They can
come in from any port. Before the formation of the United
States, I think the best example is the incursion of the
explorers with certain diseases, small pox, venereal diseases
that wiped out entire populations of human beings. Every living
group, every living population shares that vulnerability,
whether it is our plant populations or our livestock
populations, even our pets. So we talk about that all the time.
There are things that want to eat us, our plant supply or
our pets, too. And, that is a battle that has been going on for
millions of years and it knows no borders. And so, yes, the
Federal Government has that No. 1 priority, each State has its
own responsibility as well.
Mr. Ose. Sam.
Mr. Farr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for your testimony. I would just
like to followup on a couple of questions that the chairman
asked on the Buy California Initiative.
Let me put it into a little bit different context. We are
here to talk about this Federal legislation. But, what I also
see is it is very difficult to move this nation. It is so big.
I mean, move the U.S. Department of Agriculture from a broad
national standpoint of really committing to the kinds of things
you are talking about. And, it seems to me there is other
pressures that can be brought up under experiences; and that is
California itself as being the populous State, the biggest
agriculture State and the most diversified agriculture State.
In the grant program for the Buy California Initiative, I
am wondering whether the Department is thinking about using the
results of those grants, the success of those grants to
essentially tackle the issue of how we really get specialty
crops into institutional buying programs. If you look at us on
the Ag Appropriations Committee and every year when we are
looking at the commodity programs and those commodities that we
buy end up back in the school lunch program or buy back in
other kinds of public feeding programs, and those commodity
programs are not producing the things that are nutritional five
a day programs suggests we should eat. So essentially the
Federal Government is not buying what they are telling people
they ought to eat, and we are going to try to do something
about that.
But one of the problems you have is that, frankly, they
have been buying these things because they are easy to buy in
commodities. You can put them in big barrels or you can put
them in big boxes. They do not think about specialty crops
being packaged the way we are packaging them now. It is just a
seque on technology. You do not remember that the lettuce in
the bag was not invented at MIT or silicon valley. It was
invented in the Salinas Valley. And, the carrots and celery
that you can get in a package that are party snacks or used and
served on airplanes, that technology was developed here by the
men and women sitting in this room.
So, you do have a technology investment along with this,
just for the sake of packaging fresh produce. But I would love
to see if you can as the new Secretary bring together how we
can have institutional changes in California. If we can change
our own schools and our prisons. I mean think of the
institutions that feed a lot of people; our hospitals. And, I
think the U.S. military is very interested in being right there
with you, because they want healthy food. That we could from
California really shape that agenda by not only talking about
the need to do it, but demonstrating that we can deliver fresh
produce, fresh crops, specialty crops to the buyers in a timely
way and in a way in which they can distribute them.
So it is just more of an observation than needing comment.
And, I just hope you will be able to pull that together. You
have already pointed out in your testimony that it has changed
the school behavior in being able to build facilities to have
salad bars in schools and milk vending machines, and so on. And
that is, I think, the demonstration that the rest of the Nation
needs to see. Because I believe as goes California, so goes the
country.
The other point I want to mention on your California
Agriculture Emergency Response Team just FYI, the only school
in the United States that is teaching first responders by
giving them master's degrees in a whole new field called
Homeland Security, is right here in Monterey at the Naval Post
Graduate School. I have asked the faculty over there to get
ahold of our Ag Commissioners and members of the agriculture
community here to essentially address the thing that you need,
which is to support the Emergency Response pertaining to food
safety, pest, disease prevention as they teach these first
responders who are career people, who are coming over here to
get a master's degree. And, they do it by coming here for 2
weeks. They get an initial course and they go back to their
jobs and do distance learning, and come finally to get their
degree. I think it's going to seque into a doctoral degree.
The inventive educational curriculum that is being done in
Monterey will carry over to universities throughout the country
because there is demand for that. I hope you can plug into
that.
I mean, the Navy will probably come and talk to you. But, I
will make sure that they ask questions and maybe you can tell
people to also give them a call.
Last, the invasive pests that the chairman was talking
about. When George Brown was alive, who is a good friend of
yours from southern California, he worked with UC Riverside and
Secretary Gomes to try to create a center for prevention,
rather than just respond to disaster. Essentially you and
science know--we have ideas of what is coming, what is headed
this way, what may get into the California food chain. We ought
to be working on the ounce of prevention. We ought to be able
to know that whenever we have a Pierce's Disease that what is
the kind of response that is appropriate.
What happened is that the Federal Government, they were
going to do a local tax election there, and I think that
failed, to help this center for disease control and prevention.
We need to get that back on the agenda, and I think the Federal
Government needs to support that very heavily. We are pitching
that with the USDA but your support could be very helpful in
that.
Mr. Kawamura. Be very happy to do that.
Mr. Farr. Thank you very much.
Mr. Ose. Thank you, Congressman Farr.
Secretary Kawamura, for the record, I just want to make
sure I get this here, as I read your testimony you support H.R.
3242, the Specialty Crops Competitiveness Act?
Mr. Kawamura. I support it absolutely.
Mr. Ose. All right. That sounds like a simple statement,
but you cannot imagine how much weight that carries. I am just
telling you. That is a powerful message to the rest of the
country.
I want to just examine it for a minute. How do you feel
this bill will benefit the specialty crop industry here in
California? What do you see coming out of this?
Mr. Kawamura. Going back to my earlier statement about just
those dynamics of consumption increase again. If we really do
find ourselves with five, six, seven servings within a short
period of time due to a health message, due to a nutrition
message of eating this healthy, it could be fast food but it is
going to be healthy fast food. It could be in the school
systems. It could be food coming down to all the different
institutional providers.
In 2003, and this is the right setting to be talking about
value added food supplies. Value added is basically
technologies of the day putting food into a new form that makes
it easier to ship, possibly less perishable, more adaptable to
a consumer that's on the move, more easily sent abroad. And,
again, those old conceptions of what a commodity purchase
program can be need to be reevaluated. In 2003 we see that
there is a tremendous potential for an increase beyond anything
we have imagined driven by a nutrition paradigm that can move
this State and this country forward, not only in the business
side of it but in the health side as well. So the dual win/win
of that kind of scenario is something that this kind of a
specialty crop grant program and this kind of a specialty crop
act can provide and give the impetus as we move forward to
reassess the entire Farm bill in 2007.
Mr. Ose. Your point is that you tie the different pieces of
this together from the research and the marketing and the trade
aspects, and then all of a sudden using the USDA's food
pyramid, you think the demand for specialty crops will increase
rather significantly?
Mr. Kawamura. Almost overnight.
Mr. Ose. Right. Now, I want to go back for a moment if I
may to the pest exclusion issue. We were talking about the
Mexican fruit fly or the New Castle Disease. Again, 22 million
on the Mexican fruit fly, 177 million on the New Castle
Disease. In terms of the cost of dealing with that, how much of
those costs is the State bearing today?
Mr. Kawamura. Going back to Congressman Farr's statement,
and both of you had mentioned an ounce of prevention and we
talked about the dollars of a penny wise, pound foolish, an
ounce of prevention is worth a pound of flesh. The first dollar
prevention that we can continue to spend in all areas of pest
exclusion is our best investment.
These dollars that were spent on Pierce's Disease, the
dollars that were spent on exotic New Castle disease, those
numbers are actually amazingly low for the just outstanding
response that the State working hand-in-hand with the USDA was
able to provide in getting up to speed and fighting those
infestations.
The partnership clearly is something that we understand.
The question is how much of a role does the Federal Government
play in this? It is an absolute hand-hold. Our economy
currently, of course, is impacted. We hope to be back on the
right track here in California. We are always concerned then if
dollars are short in areas of prevention, and this time we
would always hope that the Federal Government would be able to
help us during a time of financial difficulty. We plan to be
able to convince our own State of the importance of pest
exclusion and make sure that our funding is always strong so
that we are not a drain on the Federal Government by any
chance. It is something that we are working toward, so we need
assistance.
I might remind everyone, it is the experts that are asking
and encouraging us to seek that assistance. There's some
tremendous knowledge here in the State, and we should be all
very wise to listen to that.
Mr. Ose. $22 million and $177 million is pretty quickly
$200 million. One thing that has been shared with me is the
State pays a share of that even though, frankly, much of the
responsibility might originate at our borders. Am I accurately
informed on that?
Mr. Kawamura. Yes, you are. Yes, the State does have a cost
share within those programs.
Mr. Ose. What is the cost share arrangement?
Mr. Kawamura. It depends, I believe and I might have my
facts wrong, but it should be one for every dollar. I believe
with the Pierce's Disease it's $8.
Mr. Ose. We can expand on that, but there is a cost share
relationship?
Mr. Kawamura. I can followup? Yes, there is.
Mr. Ose. OK, so we will followup with you with a written
question about that to get that on the record.
Is that cost share relationship equitable?
Mr. Kawamura. It is in regards to the total amount of, how
would you say, resource that is preserved or saved for the rest
of the country. Again, California produces over 50 percent of
all the fruits and vegetables, for example, in the country. And
so, this is the food supply for the country that is being
protected, not just for California. Our specialty crops, where
they are an enormous amount of the percentage of the food
supply of the United States in the form of food, specialty
crops are what California produces for the rest of the country.
So the whole country benefits from the preservation of this
industry. And, it is not right to look at each State. It is a
parallel production within all the States. It is our food
supply and we must always protect it. Because if we get a
tremendous flood or some horrendous disaster in California, you
had better hope that Florida does not have that disaster. It
is, again, a big picture that we forget many times of what the
food system of the United States is all about.
Mr. Farr. I had one more series of questions.
Mr. Ose. It is your turn.
Mr. Farr. Just a seque on that also, Mr. Chairman, that was
a very good question. And, I think, when we get to that and you
will see that California specialty crops put in more of their
own private funding matched with a commitment with the State
than probably any other crop in the country. I mean, we are
carrying more of our burden, and, I think, that was the
chairman's question. The Federal Government should have more of
a responsibility.
Mr. Kawamura. Congressman Farr, if I may just add, and that
was an excellent point, part of the reason that the industry
stepped up to the plate is we deal with perishable living
things. The bureaucratic process is too slow sometimes for the
response that we need. And so, to followup on that, we could
always do better, we could get those response emergency funds
out faster. When the experts are asking for it, I think we
should deliver it. That is how fast it should work.
With hoof and mouth disease, for example, every hour that
you delay the process to seal it up, it costs millions upon
millions of dollars. That is one of those estimates that are
out there.
So in followup, the reason the industry responded with some
of their own money is they see the danger to their crops in a
short timeframe. They cannot necessarily wait for the right
processes to go through. We would love to modify that process
and make it a quicker process.
Mr. Ose. Someone on the second panel talks about the
cooperative or collective efforts within marketing orders or
different segments of the industry in terms of dollars
committed to that. So we will expand on that when we get to
that.
Mr. Farr. I have no further questions.
Mr. Ose. OK. I do want to examine a couple of things, Mr.
Secretary. With respect to California itself, what do you feel
are the most important trade priorities for our agricultural
sector?
Mr. Kawamura. We have always asked for a harmonized set of
rules that allows all of us to trade so that our trading
partners have the similar kinds of rules and regulations into
their food production that we have to deal with. We have always
asked our tradeofficials to look for countries that have
populations that can actually buy our crops.
Many times we are making trade agreements with countries
that have nothing to offer us, but their specialty crops and no
market for our specialty crops. That is a concern.
Many times within our trade policies we are finding that
our products are kept out of those countries because of, again,
technical trade barriers that can be solved if we were to focus
a little more of our resources on resolving those barriers in
those countries to open the markets for us instead of focusing
our dollars on allowing other countries to come into our
country with their food products.
So, those are the kind of focuses that we need to followup
on.
We have not yet looked into the food assistance dynamics
and the politics of how we feed a hungry world that sometimes
is in crises, going back to the fact that we have products now
in 2003 that used to be very perishable that are now in forms
that are highly non-perishable and easily delivered. We should
certainly look at that new function of specialty crops being a
part of that nutrition program that we give to a hungry world
that is certainly in many cases in significantly dire straits
in terms of their nutrition.
Mr. Ose. You made a very cogent point relative to targeting
these trade agreements on countries that can afford to buy our
product. I mean, that is such common sense it is unusual, I
mean I have to tell you. I have been in Washington for 5 years
and I do not think I ever heard it put so succinctly. So, I do
think that is a very good point that gets lost in a lot of our
discussions.
Are there countries in particular that we do not have trade
agreements with today that you are aware of that we ought to
look at? If you were able to say or wave your hand and say all
right, we are going here, there, and there; where would you go?
Mr. Kawamura. Well, again, those countries that could buy
our products easily. European Union as a trading block, we do
not have a current open bilateral treaty with them. There is
all kinds of, as you mentioned earlier, tremendous subsidies to
their specialty crop sector that basically prohibit us from
being competitive in their markets. As well as tariffs into
Japan would be another one. Some products are getting in, some
products are not.
So, those countries with the biggest populations of middle
class and just with the kind of economy that it can afford our
products, it is an easy demographic that you can see, we should
be focusing on those for our products.
We understand many of these trade treaties are driven by
national security interests. I think we always want to try and
remind our administrations and our country that food security
is a security issue for national security.
Mr. Ose. Right. Thank you.
We have no further questions at this time. We do have
things that came up here that will be pleased to forward to you
and your staff.
Mr. Kawamura. One last, for the record. Again, and I
apologize. I am about day 15 here into the job site. I do not
have all the facts.
Mr. Ose. You are doing fine.
Mr. Kawamura. But on the fruit fly infestation recently,
the Federal Government put up $11 million and California put up
$11 million. The New Castle disease it was a Federal
recognizing the danger to the entire State--to the entire
country on an explosion of New Castle disease into the poultry
industries. It is $170 million from the Federal side, $7
million from the State side.
Mr. Ose. OK.
Mr. Farr. Just the State?
Mr. Kawamura. Just the State. And this is just on these
aside from what private industry might have put in on their
own, but----
Mr. Farr. It was $170 million just for California or the
whole country?
Mr. Kawamura. $170 million on the Federal side.
Mr. Ose. For the outbreak that occurred in California?
Mr. Kawamura. Yes.
Mr. Ose. Right.
Mr. Kawamura. On the glassy-winged sharpshooter, it was $6
million for the State, $24 million Federal.
Mr. Ose. OK.
Mr. Kawamura. And then, not to mention the private
contribution, which was a sizable amount as well.
Mr. Ose. From industry?
Mr. Kawamura. From industry.
Mr. Ose. OK. All right. Well, Mr. Secretary, thank you.
Mr. Kawamura. Thank you again for your support.
Mr. Ose. Is this your first testimony before a
congressional committee?
Mr. Kawamura. No, and it will not be my last, but----
Mr. Ose. I tried to get there first.
Mr. Kawamura. The first in this capacity, yes.
Mr. Ose. All right. Well, we are pleased you were able to
join us. We look forward to working with you, and we thank you
for your support.
Mr. Kawamura. Thank you for your support. I appreciate it.
Mr. Ose. Thank you.
We will take a 5-minute break here.
If the second panel of witnesses could gather as the
Secretary leaves, that would be great.
[Recess].
Mr. Ose. All right. I want to welcome the second panel of
witnesses to our hearing today.
We are joined today by Mr. Joe Zanger, who is a member of
the board of directors of the California Farm Bureau
Federation. We are joined by Mr. Jim Bogart, who is the
president of Grower-Shipper Vegetable Association of Central
California. We also have with us today the chairman of Western
Growers Association, Mr. John D'Arrigo. And, we are also joined
by the vice president and general counsel of Tanimura and
Antle, Mr. Robert Nielsen.
Gentlemen, you saw how we handled the first panel. We are
going to shortly hear your oral testimonies. You have each
submitted written testimony, which we have received and
reviewed.
Each of you will be given 5 minutes to summarize your
testimony, which ought to be interesting because I read
everybody's testimony and I do not believe I could summarize
some of it in 5 minutes, but we will see.
Then we will go to questions. So, we will have five, five,
five, five and then questions between Congressman Farr and I.
The questions will follow the completion of your testimony.
Do you have any questions?
OK. If you would all rise so we can swear you in.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Ose. Let the record show that all the witnesses
answered in affirmative.
Our first witness on the second panel is a board member of
the California State Farm Bureau Federation, Mr. Joe Zanger.
Mr. Zanger, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENTS OF JOSEPH ZANGER, MEMBER, BOARD OF DIRECTORS,
CALIFORNIA FARM BUREAU FEDERATION; JIM BOGART, PRESIDENT,
GROWER-SHIPPER VEGETABLE ASSOCIATION OF CENTRAL CALIFORNIA;
JOHN D'ARRIGO, CHAIRMAN, WESTERN GROWERS; AND ROBERT NIELSEN,
VICE PRESIDENT, TANIMURA & ANTLE AND UNITED FRESH FRUIT AND
VEGETABLE ASSOCIATION
Mr. Zanger. Thank you. I am Joe Zanger, a grower,
processor, packer and retailer of fruits and vegetables in
Hollister. I am a member of the California Farm Bureau Board of
Directors and I serve on the USDA USTR Trade Advisory Committee
for Fruits and Vegetables. Also, I have been on the Farm
Service Agency State Committee for the last 8 or 9 years.
Congressman Farr saw to it that I received that appointment
back then and with the change of administrations, thanks to
Chairman Ose, I am still on the State committee.
On behalf of our Farm Bureau members, I thank you for the
opportunity to present testimony on problems facing the
specialty crop industry. And, thank you, Mr. Ose, for
forwarding the testimony from this hearing to the House Ag
Committee. Thanks, too, for the Ag Committee staff who are
present here today.
While working to provide a reliable food supply through
responsible stewardship of our country's natural resources,
growers are attempting to balance numerous issues such as
global competition, retail consolidation, trade barriers,
rising input costs and low commodity prices. Specialty crop
growers are determined to find solutions outside the
traditional U.S. farm support programs. Solutions can be
identified through meaningful review of the reform of domestic
policies that impair the viability and global competitiveness
of our specialty crop producers. The Specialty Crop
Competitiveness Act of 2003 offers necessary short and long
term support for growers of fruits and vegetables and nuts
throughout America. The bill addresses a wide array of issues
from threats imposed by imported pests and diseases to
preparing a strategy to increase U.S. exports.
I would like to express our appreciation to the bill's
author, Congressman Ose, and the cosponsors of the bill
including Representative Farr.
But today, I would like to briefly comment on international
trade. The WTO Doha Round presents a unique opportunity for the
horticultural industry to reform inequitable trade policies
that place our producers at a competitive disadvantage. Past
trade agreements have provided more benefits to foreign
producers than U.S. producers, primarily because of continued
high tariffs in many countries and substantial foreign
subsidies. Our competitors enjoy the ease of exporting their
product into the United States under low and zero tariffs.
To ensure that issues of interest to the specialty crop
sector are addressed, a number of U.S. specialty crop
organizations, including the California Farm Bureau, have
collaborated to form the HORT Alliance. The HORT Alliance
stands for Horticultural Organizations for Responsible Trade.
The HORT Alliance is seeking an overall WTO agreement that
produces tangible benefits for the fruit, nut and vegetable
sector. Our objective is to correct disparities that
disadvantage U.S. growers through the framework negotiations,
and if necessary to sector-specific negotiations.
The Alliance is seeking: Aggressive and significant reform
in market access; new rules that limit trade distorting amber
box subsidies to horticultural and specialty crops; and
immediate elimination of export subsidies.
To summarize, there are significant trade export subsidy
and domestic support issues that must be addressed if U.S.
specialty crop produces are to see meaningful reform in the
Doha Round. California Farm Bureau looks forward to continuing
its work with the U.S. negotiators and with our Members of
Congress in an effort to address the trade inequities impacting
the U.S. specialty crop industry.
I think I will stop there. I do have additional thoughts
and perspectives on how the Federal Government can be helpful
to specialty crops, and I will try to tie them in and bring
them out during the questioning and answering period.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Zanger follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4067.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4067.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4067.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4067.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4067.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4067.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4067.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4067.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4067.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4067.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4067.044
Mr. Ose. If there is something we miss in the Q&A period,
just make sure that you get our attention. You do not have to
raise your hand.
Mr. Zanger. Thank you.
Mr. Ose. All right. Thank you, Mr. Zanger.
Our next witness is the president of the Grower-Shipper
Association here in Salinas, Mr. Jim Bogart.
Mr. Bogart, welcome. You are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Bogart. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to testify on
behalf of the Grower-Shipper Association of Central California
to discuss Federal agricultural policy with regard to specialty
crops. We want to provide a warm welcome to you and the other
distinguished Members of Congress and congressional staff on
your visit to Monterey County.
There is no better place than right here in Salinas to
discuss specialty crop issues. We are very proud of our growers
and shippers that they have been able to provide the most
affordable, abundant and safe supply of fruits, vegetables and
other specialty crops available anywhere in the world for the
American public. Monterey County, with over $2.8 billion in
agricultural output in 2002, produces many specialty crops
which are an important component of a healthy diet.
It is commendable of Members of Congress to come here to
Salinas because today our ability to continue producing the
most affordable safe and abundant supply of nutritious
specialty crops is in jeopardy. We face many challenges in
order to remain competitive in global markets. For that reason,
the Grower-Shipper Association strongly supports the Specialty
Corp Competitiveness Act of 2003, H.R. 3242, as it will address
many of the problems facing our industry. We want to
particularly commend you, Mr. Chairman, and Representatives
Dooley, Farr, Cardoza, and others who have cosponsored this
bill, for your leadership on this legislation.
Today I want to focus some of the challenges our growers
and shippers face in the area of international trade.
Specialty crop growers in California have long known that
expanding exports is critical to maintaining a competitive edge
in global markets. However, in recent years, the balance of
trade for U.S. fruit and vegetable exports versus imports has
not been positive, as we have seen our exports remain stagnant
while imports have steadily increased. I have attached some
statistics and charts to my remarks to bear this out.
Our growers and shippers have been disappointed with their
inability to gain access to international markets in recent
years. The Uruguay Round trade agreement of 1995 was supposed
to lay the ground work for market access for our specialty crop
exports. The two primary components of this agreement that
benefit specialty crops are the dispute settlement and sanitary
and phytosanitary [SPS], mechanisms. While there have been a
few bright spots within our industry in efforts to expand
exports under the Uruguay Round, for the most part our growers
continue to find access to foreign markets blocked by trade
barriers.
There are several key reasons that U.S. specialty crops
growers have been frustrated in their efforts to increase
exports. First, we continue to face dozens of SPS trade
barriers in many foreign markets, many of which are based on
very questionable scientific data. For example, Japan, which is
a very large potential market for specialty crop exports, has
been notorious for using questionable SPS barriers to block
entry of our products.
Another major issue that our growers continue to face
competition from heavily subsidized growers in foreign
countries. The European Union is the largest problem in this
regard, providing $11 billion in subsidies per year to its
fruit and vegetable industries. As you can imagine, it is
extremely difficult for our growers, who do not participate in
the USDA subsidy programs, to compete against foreign growers
who receive generous financial assistance from their
government.
Another area of concern is that many of the bilateral free
trade agreements that have been enacted in recent years are
with countries that do not have substantial markets per capita
or per capita income needed to purchase high value specialty
crop products. If Federal trade policy wants to provide for
increased specialty crop exports, we need to negotiate trade
agreements with countries that have larger markets for our
products, such as the Asian Pacific Rim nations.
Currently, developments in international trade threaten to
pose even more challengers or specialty crop growers. Most
notably, the trade sanctions with the European Union are
threatening to levy in trade disputes will directly impact many
specialty crops grown here in Monterey County. Our trading
partners recognize that specialty crops are very important, and
we will always be vulnerable to retaliation measures. These
disputes must be resolved promptly in an amicable manner in
order to avoid a trade war which could devastate our existing
exports.
We do have a few success stories to tell about Federal
efforts to address the international trade problems our growers
face today. For example, Congress approved funding for the
Agricultural Research Service to conduct research for
controlled atmosphere shipping that has great promise for
enabling us to overcome SPS trade barriers in some export
markets. I would like to thank Congressman Farr for his work on
the Appropriations Committee to bring this project to fruition.
However, as the challenges that our growers face continue
to increase, so too must the efforts of the Federal Government
to enact policies that meet the needs of specialty crop
growers. Our Federal agriculture policy must do more to address
this problem of a lack of foreign market access for our
exports.
Fortunately, H.R. 3242 will enhance existing programs and
establish new initiatives that will provide growers with the
tools and technologies needed to expand exports and remain
competitive. This bill includes increased funding for the
Technical Assistance for Specialty Crops program, it will
direct APHIS to focus more of its resources on processing
export petitions, and it will enhance the Suppler Credit
Guarantee Program. With these provisions and others, this
legislation will assist our growers in boosting exports, and
ultimately will enable our industry to remain competitive in
global markets.
Mr. Chairman, again, I want to thank you for this
opportunity and commend you for your efforts to improve Federal
policies for specialty crops.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bogart follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4067.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4067.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4067.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4067.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4067.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4067.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4067.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4067.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4067.053
Mr. Ose. Thank you, Mr. Bogart.
Our next witness joining us from Western Growers, Mr. John
D'Arrigo.
Mr. D'Arrigo, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. D'Arrigo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
On behalf of Western Growers, thank you for the opportunity
to testify at this hearing today.
As you said, I am currently chairman of Western Growers
with a membership of nearly 3,000 which represents specialty
crop growers in California and Arizona that produce
approximately one-half of our Nation's produce.
I am president of D'Arrigo Brothers Co. of California, a
third generation family owned grower of vegetables and fruits.
And, I'm proud to say we are celebrating our 80th birthday this
year.
I wanted to compliment you for coming to Salinas Valley,
home of the salad bowl of the world, as we like to think of it,
to discuss the many important challenges facing the specialty
crop growers. I especially want to commend you, Congressman
Ose, as well as your colleagues Congressman Dooley, Congressman
Farr and Congressman Cardoza for your outstanding leadership in
introducing the Specialty Crop Competitiveness Act of 2003,
which Western Growers strongly supports.
Western Growers believes that a competitive specialty crops
industry is essential for the production of an affordable
supply of nutritious fruits and vegetables that are vital to
the health of all Americans. In addition, with the serious
concerns on food safety and bioterrorism today, a secure
domestic food supply is a national security imperative, in our
opinion. If specialty crop growers are to remain competitive in
today's global markets and continue to provide affordable and
safe produce to the American public, Federal agriculture policy
must be substantially improved. Growers of specialty crops face
a crises of competitiveness that must be addressed by Congress.
It is extremely difficult for growers to compete against
foreign produces who are heavily subsidized and minimally
regulated. As regulation increases to control the impact of
agricultural practices on air, water and soil quality,
production costs for growers are increasing rapidly. Growers
compete in a supply and demand environment. We are price
takers, not pricemakers. And, therefore, we are unable to
merely increase prices to cover increased input costs. Simply
put, we cannot pass increases on.
While specialty crop growers make a substantial and
important contribution to our Nation's economy, as well as our
health, we have different needs compared with the Federal
program crops. As such, Western Growers and the Florida Fruit
and Vegetable Association has co-chaired an effort of specialty
crop organizations throughout the United States to develop
comprehensive legislation that will meet the needs of growers
in all States producing specialty crops; whether you are a
grower in Texas, Washington, Michigan, Georgia, New York. The
challenge of competitiveness is a universal concern to all
growers. These proposals are embodied in the Specialty Crop
Competitiveness Act of 2003. I applaud you for including these
important provisions in your bill.
I would now like to briefly highlight a few of the major
issues that are important to Western Growers.
First, marketing order promotion programs have come under
legal and Constitutional challenges in recent years, and thus,
the benefits they provide to growers and consumers are in
jeopardy. We need to research and identify new concepts and
tools that can assist growers in remaining competitive in this
area.
Western Growers recommends that the Federal law be changed
to prevent marketing order committees to implement food safety
programs. This would allow growers to implement good
agricultural practices designed to keep fruits and vegetables
free from adulteration or microbial contamination. This would
help meet the public's demand for greater levels of food
safety.
Another issue that needs to be addressed is the adverse
impacts on growers and shippers of the inspection scandal at
Hunts Point Terminal Market in New York. Under the procedures
of the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act [PACA], even
though a grower/shipper may have received a damage award
through the packer administration process, the wholesaler in a
procedure can appeal the packer ruling and receive a new
hearing in U.S. Federal District Court. In many cases, the
dollar amount of the award to the grower/shipper may be only
$10,000 or less and therefore would make it not feasible to
invest legal fees to pursue action in Federal court. In some
cases, the wholesaler involved in illegal activity simply went
out of business and the grower/shipper had no opportunity to
collect any money on the packer damage award. Clearly, the
current system is not working for our growers and shippers in
order to make them whole from this scandal. Western Growers
recommends the development of an arbitration proceeding that
could be established and utilized to effect a more cost
efficient and timely resolution of this problem.
I also want to stress the importance of improving foreign
market access that we can increase specialty crop exports.
Based on data from the U.S. Department of Commerce over the
last 7 years, U.S. imports in fruits and vegetables have
increased by almost 60 percent while U.S. exports have
increased only 7.3 percent.
There are a number of reasons for this, such as the $11
billion in subsidies which the European Union provides to its
agricultural industry annually. Additionally, the recently
completed Free Trade Agreements, the FTAs with countries such
like Chile and those currently in the process of being
negotiated with such as Latin America, Morocco and the South
African Customs Union offer United States and vegetable growers
only limited export opportunities. Many of these countries are
not economically developed enough to be able to afford high
value products, and therefore the market for our exports is
negligible.
Western Growers believes that the international trade
provisions in your legislation, Mr. Chairman, will address this
problem of limited foreign market access providing growers with
the tools such as the market access and technical assistance
programs needed to increase exports. In addition, Western
Growers would like to see free trade agreements in the Asian
Pacific Rim countries that currently have high tariff rates and
significant phytosanitary barriers so that these implements to
our exports can be removed.
In closing, I urge you to review these issues discussed in
my written statements which are addressed in Specialty Crop
Competitiveness Act. Western Growers again wants to thank you,
Mr. Chairman and the cosponsors of the bill for your strong
leadership. Cannot say that enough. We urge Congress to enact
this legislation and look forward to working with you toward
this goal.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. D'Arrigo follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4067.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4067.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4067.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4067.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4067.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4067.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4067.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4067.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4067.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4067.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4067.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4067.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4067.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4067.067
Mr. Ose. Thank you, Mr. D'Arrigo.
Our final witness on the second panel is Mr. Robert
Nielsen, the vice president and general counsel for Tanimura &
Antle. Welcome.
Mr. Nielsen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Ose. You're recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Nielsen. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, Congressman Farr, ladies and gentlemen, I
want to thank you for this invitation. I want to thank you,
too, for your being here. I want to thank you also for your
work on the specialty crops issues that this country and its
industries are facing.
I am appearing today on behalf of Tanimura & Antle here in
the Salinas Valley, and also on behalf of United Fresh Fruit
and Vegetable Association, which is headquartered in
Washington, DC.
At the outset I would like to say that we support the
Specialty Crop Competitiveness Act and we applaud you for your
efforts. The first time, as far as we can determine, that such
a comprehensive effort has been made to address the issues that
specialty crop producers in the United States face. This is
commendable. We are pleased that Congress is on record as both
you members pointed out, that the volume of specialty crops
produced in this country now exceeds the volume in dollar terms
of the crops that receive Federal assistance. We are no longer,
as Congressman Farr pointed out, minor crops. We are the
biggest player in the game.
That being said, I would like to talk to you in behalf of
and in the context of Tanimura & Antle, which I represent, as
being one of the players in this industry, along with the
D'Arrigo Brothers and many of our other neighbors here in the
Salinas Valley. We are the people who produce these specialty
crops. And, I think it is helpful for the Congress, for the
committee, for the staff to understand what we who bear this
burden, if you will, or cease these opportunities face
everyday.
Tanimura & Antle, headquartered in Salinas, is one of the
largest privately owned produce companies in the United States.
We ship a full line of fresh vegetables and value added
products, i.e. specialty crops, grown on 56,000 acres in
California and Arizona. We have cooling facilities in Salinas
and Huron, CA, as well as Yuma, AZ. In addition, we have two
value-added salad-processing plants here in Salinas, one in
Yuma and one each in Jackson, GA, Plymouth, IN, and Boisbrind,
Quebec. We sell our products throughout the United States and
Canada, and also in Europe and Asia.
We are players and we deal with the issues that have been
raised by the three previous speakers on this panel.
Founded in 1982, Tanimura & Antle, is owned 50/50 by two
families, and it prides itself on being a leader in responsible
farming that respects the land and produces specialty crops of
the highest quality. We are consumer-oriented, as all the major
companies and all the farmers in our industry are, and at the
same time we value the contributions of our other constituents;
that is our employees, our growers and the communities in which
we operate.
Tanimura & Antle is a leader in the application of
technology to farming, being extensively committed to drip
irrigation, as well as the use of satellite technology,
advanced plant-breeding techniques, and labor-saving machinery
and equipment, much of which we develop within our own country.
As part of our technology and the efforts we do, we produce
these, which the chairman was gracious enough this morning to
indicate he might be interested in consuming. Loaded with
vitamins and minerals, these are aimed at helping kids in this
country eat healthy products on a snack basis. Carrots or
celery that kids can get, and they're nutritious and they are
good for you. This is an example of the technology that our
industry, as Congressman Farr pointed out, has been pursuing
with breathable films, with manufacturing techniques that
permit this crop to have a self life and to be exported, and to
be shipped around the country.
As I mentioned, I am also appearing on behalf of United
Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Association, which has been around
since the early part of the 20th century and is a strong voice
representing the views of producers, wholesalers, distributors,
brokers and processors in Washington.
Tanimura & Antle also as part of the activities that it
engages in, is an owner of a company by the name of Natural
Selection Foods, which is the major organic producer in the
United States. We are a grower for Natural Selection, and we
market and ship products under their label, which is Earthbound
Farms.
The produce industry is unique. Our products are highly
perishable. In fact, a son of Salinas, John Steinbeck described
in ``East of Eden'' one of the first lettuce shipments from
Salinas to the East Coast. Although the book is fiction, his
narrative is based on facts that actually occurred. The
enterprising packer/shipper who sent the rail car eastward,
lost everything when it was parked over the weekend on a siding
in Chicago and all the ice inside melted.
This early story is an example of the constant risk taking
that we in the produce industry continue to engage in. We put
millions of dollars worth of working capital into the ground
with every crop that we plant never knowing for sure whether
Mother Nature, retail channels, the marketplace or any other
number of issues will or will not stand in the way and cause us
to lose or gain from the investment that we have made.
Our markets are highly volatile, as you have heard today,
yet we have never relied on traditional farm programs to
sustain our industry. Instead, we look to Adam Smith's
``invisible hand'' to promote efficiency and reward the
entrepreneurial risk-taking that so marks our industry. And, it
is in this context that we greatly welcome the Specialty Crop
Competitiveness Act and the efforts that you, Mr. Chairman, and
your committee and the Congress are undertaking.
I would be pleased to answer more questions further on.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Nielsen follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4067.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4067.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4067.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4067.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4067.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4067.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4067.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4067.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4067.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4067.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4067.078
Mr. Ose. Well, thank you.
I thank all the witnesses for their cogent and, frankly,
comprehensive summaries of their testimonies.
We are going to go again, as we did during the first panel,
just back and forth with questions.
Do you want to go first this time?
Mr. Farr. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let me point out an observation you all made about the need
for a good stable labor supply. A bill has been introduced in
Congress by Mr. Cannon and Mr. Berman from California on the Ag
Labor worker program and get some benefits to those who are
here now to provide some temporary status while they are
pursuing permanent status. That bill has gotten broad based
support in both the House and the Senate, both Republicans and
Democrats. The one person that I have heard that is opposed to
it is Senator Feinstein, and I think we need to use the
industry to talk to her office about why this bill really is
beneficial to California. I think what the reaction is that in
the first instance there will be an increasing in population in
California from the guest worker program. All the fears about
that are sort of good. But it is, I think, the only hope that
we can address this issue and I just urge you all to bring that
attention to our Senator here.
I wanted to ask Joe Zanger, the regulation area. Monterey
County I saw in the paper just adopted the right to farm
ordinance creating, which I always thought was a smart idea,
that we talked about in the Endangered Species Act of why you
have to preserve a critical mass of habitat in order for a
species to survive. If you think about agriculture being an
endangered species, then we ought to create a protective
habitat for agriculture to survive. You are going to do that
through Federal roles and State roles. But the real land use
issues are local.
Are these ordinances having an effect? I am sure that the
reason that the County Board of Supervisors adopted it is
because of the interest in agriculture in Monterey County? Is
the Farm Bureau pursuing in each of the ag counties in
California?
Mr. Zanger. Yes. You know, land use and land zoning is very
important. You know, we support keeping agriculture on the
prime ground. But it is just not enough to draw the lines. At
the same time while we are farming, we need to have a means of
being profitable. And, you know, if you are not profitable,
then you know all the rest hardly matters. So in conjunction
with the land use and the zoning, you know there is a number of
other things that can be done both locally and State wide and
federally that help with the profitability standpoint for the
industry.
Mr. Farr. You know, the difficulty though with just doing
it that way, is there is no guarantees. We have created in the
Williamson Act in California essentially a commitment by the
landowner to keep their land in agriculture for whatever the
contract period is, and that seems to have worked well. It's a
quid pro quo for that you get a reduction in your property
taxes.
It seems to me that we need to make more of those quid pro
quos. I mean, I am supporting you, but I think that the right
to farm, I would like to see that in each county in California.
Because I think that protects at least from the notice
requirements to land buyers and to neighbors. You are moving
into an area where there is going to be noise, there is going
to be dust, there is going to be spraying, there is going to be
activity that are necessary for productive agriculture.
You brought up the regulations, and that is why I am really
wondering how far the State Farm Bureau was carrying those
kinds of issues. We will try to address these issues at the
Federal level.
Mr. Zanger. Well, as I say, we are supportive of the right
to farm. I think predominately most counties do have
ordinances. Now, how well they stand up to litigation, that is
another question.
I think farmers and ranchers are more than willing to do
all they can to protect the environment and to be part of the
environment. But it sure helps if you are making a dollar so
you can afford to do that. A lot of problems are solved when
you have money in your checkbook.
Mr. Farr. Well, I think that whole idea of protection of
farmland has to be consistent with protection of economic
return on the investment. It has to be sustainable.
Thank you.
Mr. D'Arrigo. I would like to weigh in on your question, if
I may.
Mr. Farr. Certainly.
Mr. D'Arrigo. I think it is an excellent question. I farm
right up to a lot of urban areas. They have encroached on my
property. I have people at night who go out into my farms from
the surrounding urban environment and neighborhoods that have
moved into the area after we have been farming there for
decades. They turn off our pumps. They sabotage our equipment.
They do not like the noise. They do not like the dust. They
call the Ag Commissioner and complain. They want us to shutdown
our farming operations. And, you try to explain to them, well
we were farming here first. You moved into a nice area because
you thought it would be nice and pretty to move around a farm
and look how nice it is out there, and then you realize what it
is like to live around a farm.
So I really support these ordinances of a right to farm and
right to exist and Western Growers is working on behalf of
trying to find a balance there, but clearly farmers do have a
right to produce. We have to keep reminding people as the
cities grow that we need to be able to do this.
Mr. Farr. Well, I appreciate that. I mean, this county, Mr.
Chairman, has made incredible strides. We were the first county
to require posting. It was not a State law. The ag community
was supportive of that.
The regulations are setbacks are debated county-by-county
and chemical-by-chemical. But, I think this county, and perhaps
Mr. Nielsen could comment. The one thing that was in his
testimony he did not talk about is what you do for the labor
community that you hire, the farm labor community. I think
outside of California and perhaps outside of the specialty
crops.
Specialty crops probably employ more people than any other
part of agriculture. More shipping. I mean, there is more
touching and handling of small stuff than the big stuff, which
is all combines and can be shipped and put in big grain
elevators.
I once had a staff member from Montana who was a wheat
farmer; when we drove in the Salinas Valley, she said what are
those people doing out there in the fields. I said, well how do
you harvest your wheat. And, she said, we just hire equipment
and my kids drive it.
The point is that there is so much unknown about this
industry that is so important to the big economic picture of
America. I mean, you could comment on Tanimura & Antle does for
your workers.
Mr. Nielsen. Well, Congressman Farr, the backbone of any
specialty crop farming operation is the people. The
infrastructure that you bring to the process is essential.
Our two families are committed to the workers that we
employ, well over 3,000. We pay among the highest wages in the
industry. We have a health care plan, vision care, dental care,
prescription drug plan for all of our employees and their
dependents. We have a 401(k) plan for every field worker. We
have a company profit sharing plan and the profits that we give
to our employees go into the 401(k) plan for them. We have a
scholarship fund for some of our employees' children.
We also, this past year, opened a preschool daycare
facility in concert with Monterey County on our premises here
in Salinas. We provide full daycare for children of our farm
workers and the staffing comes from the county with assistance
from the State. The kids receive nutritious meals, they receive
preschool education, which is bilingual and is moving them in
the direction of learning English. And, it's proven to be very,
very effective. In fact, we had a ceremony celebrating that
earlier this past week.
Our take on all of this is that if you invest in human
capital, which is the most important capital component in any
business operation, the returns more than justify the
investment you make. It is on the basis of that investment that
we have, I think, good relationships with our employees as do
many, many other participants in the specialty crop industry.
It is for that reason that we--and we mentioned it in our
testimony--support the various attempts that are being made to
facilitate lawful immigration into the United States for field
workers and other people. It is a very important part of the
industry. We have a great deal of faith in our employees. We
respect them, and I believe, they respect us and our company
and our country. I do not think there are a more committed
nationally supporting people that I have ever seen in a work
force than in our industry. These folks work very hard, some of
them holding down two jobs, driving long distances, living in
poor quality housing that is a long away from where they work
and yet they still keep coming and they still work hard and
they pursue the American dream. Their kids generally do not
work for us. They go to college and law school. But that is the
way it works. We are very pleased to be part of that.
So in a long response to your question, I would say that
the people you work with are the most important part of your
operation and they are to be cared for and respected.
Mr. Ose. Thank you. Each of you testified about the issue
of open markets and the impact of such on yourselves and your
colleagues. And, we have had discussion about what countries
the USTR should focus on relative to new trade agreements and
the like.
I want to turn that question around a little bit. With
respect to the specific trade agreements, I mean we can talk
about sanitary, phytosanitary things, we can talk about tariff
levels or we can talk about subsidies or what have you. At the
risk of having each tell me well they're all co-equal, which
one is most important? Which one does the USTR really need to
focus on first? And, it might be 1A, 1B and 1C, but when next
the members of the Ag Committee meet with Ambassador Zoellick,
what do you want us to tell him?
Mr. Zanger.
Mr. Zanger. Well, sure, I will start.
That is probably the toughest question you could ask today.
Because from country to country and product to product, you
know that answer is going to change. It depends on your
industry.
Mr. Ose. We are talking about specialty crops today.
Mr. Zanger. Specialty crops.
Mr. Ose. Yes.
Mr. Zanger. Probably the largest concern is the domestic
subsidies in Europe. Because we are competing against them in
other markets, in third party markets. They are able to produce
at a loss, but then they are backfielded by the government. And
then, their product is ending up in third party markets while
we are trying to quote prices and get there.
Mr. Ose. So Spanish clementines, Greek pares.
Mr. Zanger. Peaches, olives. It goes on and on.
Mr. Ose. OK. Just right down the list?
Mr. Zanger. Yes.
Mr. Ose. The subsidies to growers of those kind of crops?
Mr. Zanger. Right.
Mr. Ose. All right. Mr. Bogart.
Mr. Bogart. Yes, I would agree with Joe, although I think
SPS is right up there with subsidies. It is 1A/1B as far as I
am concerned. I mean, there is a reason why I mentioned it in
my remarks, and I mentioned subsidized crops as well. I mean
those are barriers, those are imbalances that we are trying to
overcome.
We are not here before you testifying for handouts and
subsidies.
Mr. Ose. Right.
Mr. Bogart. I mean, this is an investment as you both up
there know. It is an investment that I feel that the return
could be tenfold, a hundredfold. We are just asking to compete
on a level playing field. We are innovators. We are very
creative here. As Congressman Farr mentioned with the bag
salads; that were invented here. We are just asking for the
opportunity to compete on an equal basis. We would never ask
for subsidies, anyway.
Mr. Ose. Right.
Mr. Bogart. We have always been opposed. My association has
been opposed. I know Western Growers. I mean the producers of
specialty crops we do not want subsidies. We want access. We
want the ability to get into the game. And, I think, that these
phytosanitary barriers have been used to deny us access to
important market opportunities, as well what Joe mentioned, the
subsidized countries. So they are right, they are both right
there as far as I am concerned.
Mr. Ose. All right. Mr. D'Arrigo, amongst your 3,000
members what is the input?
Mr. D'Arrigo. I think those two issues are your answer.
Enabling us to be more competitive in the world market with
free market access, eliminating these unofficial trade
barriers, which when I say that, I used to go to Japan. Anytime
the local markets had a surplus of broccoli, well then I got
inspected, rejected and kicked out of the country because of
whatever reason they wanted to come up. This level playing
field does not exist. So, that and the subsidies are the issue.
Mr. Ose. I mean, you suggest that the day-to-day knowledge
of the government agency in some of these other countries is
such as to be able to say on that specific day or that specific
week there is a surplus or a deficit in this product. Yet, we
do not have that here. There is no way that USDA tracks it that
closely here.
Mr. D'Arrigo. Well, absolutely. I quit Japan because I used
to send dozens if not 20 to 30 loads a week there. When they
had a surplus in their local markets, in their domestic
production, the inspections phytosanitary things came out of
the woodwork, and I clearly had rejected loads that were
unsubstantiated. I flew over there to personally inspect my own
loads.
They have a system there that works to protect their local
farmers, and these kind of unofficial things killed my business
over there.
Mr. Ose. OK. Mr. Nielsen.
Mr. Nielsen. Mr. Chairman, the whole post World War II free
trade structure is built on an embodiment of the law of
comparative advantage, which reflects the fact that some
nations, as you know, produce better than others. For that law
to work there has to be not only free trade but fair trade.
We are active in markets in Asia and in Europe. We support
the WTO, but we support fair trade. The concerns we have are
the protectionist distortions that arise from agricultural
interests within the country that we are exporting to.
We do not mind the fact that Chinese broccoli in certain
times of the year sells way under ours in Japan. The Chinese
have lower labor costs, it is a shorter distance to ship. What
we do mind is when phytosanitary barriers are imposed on our
products coming into Japan. And, those barriers are imposed on
an ad hoc basis without consistency, and they are imposed
because they are found in products coming from California the
very same kind of bugs, if you will, that exist in Japan.
I should say that progress is being made in this regard
with the Japanese Government and with governments in other
parts of the world, but it is long and slow and hard. These
distortions which unlevel the playing field, which corrupt if
you will the law of comparative advantage are what have to be
addressed. We strongly support the act's proposal to have the
USTR have at least one person--I do not think one is enough--
but at least one person in there whose focus is going to be on
specialty crops who can get into the process with Ambassador
Zoellick and just make sure this gets raised so that we do not
get lost in the need to sell super computers or Boeing aircraft
or whatever else is more important to the United States in a
large big picture.
Mr. Ose. OK.
Mr. Farr. Your problem in Japan is unique because it is a
perishable crop. So just the delay?
Mr. D'Arrigo. Exactly. You are dead.
Mr. Farr. Kills your product? I was just thinking, we have
never put perishability into the jargon that we use in trade.
Mr. D'Arrigo. It's critical.
Mr. Farr. Because it is probably the only thing that we
export that is a living thing that dies within a certain time.
I mean it decays. Let me just suggest something. Because the
bill that the chairman's authored, along with Congressman
Dooley, has six titles in it. There is some heavy lifting in
this bill.
Essentially what it is going to do is what you stated, is
that the specialty crops need to be treated as a major crop in
America. Need to be treated as probably the major crop because
it employs more people and all the things that we have talked
about. It is healthy, and this kind of stuff that we ought to
be supporting.
But, this is about getting more money in a zero-sum game;
we ought to have more money for grants, more money for loans,
it is a bill about marketing. It is about food safety,
phytosanitary issues. It is about international trade. It is
even about changing position in the U.S. Trade Representative's
Office so a specialty crop representative could be there. It is
for market access, technical assistance, supply of credit
guarantees. It is about specialty research, more money; robbing
from Peter to pay Paul. It is about the invasive test stuff and
disease that we have talked about here; food safety issues.
And, it is about a sustainability practice which I have applaud
you and applaud the chairman for getting into the bill because
that is really, I think, what all of this from land use to
being economically viable talked about; is how do you do this
over a time particularly in the State of California which is
the most populous State in the United States, and growing that
way.
What the chairman cannot say but I can sit here among
friends and say, and this is just political advice, we have got
a lot of people that will look at this bill as a threat. Why?
Because it is going to cost more money. You are going to have
to put some personnel in there and, frankly, there is some
competition for that.
In this trade issue is the stool of the economics of
agriculture in the United States. As I said in the opening, we
have traditionally been treated as a minor crop or, you know,
we do not exist. There is one time when we do exist. Only one
time. That is the politics of trade. It is not because of the
crops you grow, it is because California is the biggest ag
State. So anybody in the trade business, whether it is the
financial markets of New York or the computer industry in
Silicone Valley, they always want the lobbyists for trade to be
agriculture because every Member of Congress has some
agriculture in their district. I guess, except the city of New
York and here the city of L.A. But Willie Brown was always fine
in just saying well they grow crops there they are just not put
in the ag report.
But, the point is that you are the front lines for the
lobby for trade for everything that is in trade. And, I think,
that California agriculture needs to sort of hold its cards a
little tighter, and particular if this bill is going to be
successful.
You ought to start letting the world know that if they
going to come here, this is the only time they come to you and
say will you help us. We say ``Yes, we will, but here are our
conditions.'' Because everything you have outlined is needed to
be done, but it will not be done unless we change the politic
in Washington to do it.
So, hold back and negotiate a good deal for yourselves.
Now that I have that off my chest, but it comes about
because Mr. Bogart in his testimony put out the Agriculture
Coalition on Trade, and there is a way you have a way you can
hold those cards tight.
I did have one question for John D'Arrigo, which was the
arbitration in the PACA, suggesting that we have an
arbitration. Could you explain that a little more? Would it be
binding arbitration you are suggesting? I mean, again, we have
gone through that fight when I was on the Ag Committee, and we
were able to beef up the cutback in that or stop the cutback in
that area. It is an area that I found when we discussed it in
Washington, nobody knew about. They did not know PACA existed.
Mr. D'Arrigo. They did not know it existed? That tells you
something.
Well, what I'm suggesting is we have to find a way that the
Hunts Point scandal brought out the problems that you could get
your ruling against that receiver and still they could bring it
into U.S. Federal Court, it is economically inviable to go that
route. So we have to find some other method and arbitration is
one method that would preserve your assets and you could get
your money back and not basically spend everything and more to
prove that you were right and go broke doing it.
Arbitration may or may not be the method, but we need some
method to do that. I am suggesting arbitration.
Mr. Ose. May I?
Mr. Farr. Sure. Please.
Mr. Ose. If the party on the other side of the arbitration
or whatever process it is, goes out of business then it doesn't
make any difference. It seems to me that the party who brought
the action is just kind of cutout whether the antagonist
collapses in an arbitration hearing or collapses in a judicial
hearing. It seems to me like, if you will, the plaintiff is
still kind of left out in the cold?
Mr. D'Arrigo. Well, that is a tactic that is used. However,
in the PACA laws what happens is the rights of the shipper are
protected in a first position. So if the assets are ceased
properly, including the receivables, we have first shot at it.
Mr. Ose. OK. So you have a priority claim?
Mr. D'Arrigo. Yes.
Mr. Ose. All right.
Mr. Farr. The problem we have is, again, the perishability.
Mr. Ose. Right.
Mr. Farr. If you have a PACA situation with corn or wheat,
you could resell it.
Mr. D'Arrigo. You hit the nail on the head.
Mr. Farr. You cannot resell something that it's perished.
Mr. D'Arrigo. Right. Within a couple of weeks, we are dead.
Mr. Nielsen. Mr. Chairman, if I might add, we had an
experience in which we were dealing with a wholesaler in New
Jersey who basically disappeared on us. We knew where he was.
We knew where the moneys were. We went into Federal court to
exercise our rights under PACA to confirm the statutory lien
that we were entitled to, and the Federal court there refused
to grant it. We lost a lot of money and, indeed, we appealed
the decision and went up to the circuit court and made some law
in the United States which says that Federal district courts
can grant injunctions under PACA. It is not clear under the
statute, but about 4 or 5 years ago we had to do that.
It is an act that does help this industry incredibly well.
There are folks on the other end of the chain who do not like
it because we trumped them. But I think the key in the proposed
act and the bill language with regard to Hunts Point is that
what you are seeking to do is to vindicate our faith in the
people we look to help us in this industry.
I think the problem with Hunts Point is that it is a
scandal, it is a debacle and for a while there were some folks
in the Federal Government saying, ``Well, yes.'' This act would
seek to go beyond that and to reenforce the efforts of good and
like minded people in the government who did try to help us.
I think the thing is that Hunts Point really just is a
black mark and we need to have our faith restored. I think that
is what you are trying to do with this part of the legislation.
Mr. Ose. If I might, I would be interested in your
collective feedback regarding the efforts in Japan and
Australia in effect to impose sanitary and phytosanitary
standards on America exports there. Are those standards
scientifically based? I mean, does anybody have any input on
that? Mr. Zanger.
Mr. Zanger. Well, that has been a critical issue. The SPS
issues on all these FTAs that are going on right now. We have
made a stand, especially with Australia, because lots of times
it is not science, to answer your question. We heard that about
Japan. It is not the science or is it a dispute in scientists
among scientists, they will dispute it. And so, you get into
that.
So, there are committees now while they are negotiating
these FTAs that are dealing with the ongoing issues, and they
have set up mechanisms in anticipation of future issues that
come up. But that has been one of our greatest concern is that
the SPS issues are going to slip through again and you can fix
the other things, but if they put down artificial barrier
because they cry foul, then it is all for not.
Mr. Bogart. If I could chime in there, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Ose. Mr. Bogart.
Mr. Bogart. Yes, I agree with Mr. Zanger again completely.
The problem is, in our view, a lot of these phytosanitary
barriers are not grounded in sound science. That is what we are
pushing for through this legislation and any other way that we
can, is have these things based and grounded in science. That
is the main problem, as I see it.
Mr. Ose. Mr. D'Arrigo, Mr. Nielsen, anything?
Mr. D'Arrigo. I concur.
Mr. Ose. OK.
Mr. Nielsen. I would add that I think that science often
depends on someone's perspective. It is difficult. I mean, we
have run into in Japan the issue of people saying well science
supports the conclusions that are reached by the regulators
there. It is a very difficult proposition.
I should recuse myself with regard to Australia, because
that is where I am from. But my ancestors were specialty crop
farmers, some of them in New South Wales. I do not believe that
the folks that I know and my family down there are
protectionists. Australians do not receive agricultural
subsidies. The Canns Group has been supporting efforts to
eliminate subsidies worldwide.
I would believe that in the longer run the CSIRO, which is
the Commonwealth Scientific Organization down there would be
able to work with Americans. We speak slightly different
languages. But I think that they could reach accord and develop
scientific agreement on what the issues are.
Mr. Ose. One of my objectives in Section 4.2 of this bill
is to try and set up a mechanism by where we can get money
authorized to create, if you will, a template for sanitary and
phytosanitary standards so that you can take it from here to
there, and it is always generally the same template. You might
tweak it here and there. But is that something we need to
basically convey either directly within the legislation or
within a report on the legislation?
Mr. Zanger. Well, that SPS committee system within the FTA
agreements, they set it up as a template in Chile. Now they are
applying it to negotiations in Australia and Morocco, and lots
of countries. So in that sense, you know, the USTR trade
negotiators are using that template method.
It is a matter of whether the teeth are there, though,
Congressman.
Mr. Ose. Until you enforce it, it does not mean anything?
Mr. Zanger. Yes.
Mr. Ose. Are the standards in the existing agreements being
enforced?
Mr. Zanger. I do not know.
Mr. Ose. Well, that says something in itself.
Mr. Zanger. No. I think producers would say no, but when
you look to the GATT agreement and Uruguay Round and the
standards and the rules there. You know, with Australia I do
not know if it took 10 or 12 years to straighten out the table
grape thing; that is a long period of time for enforcement, to
have enforcement work.
Mr. Ose. Yes. But if I might, just come back to the
question: Do you all agree that it is important to have
specific SPS standards in the trade agreements?
Mr. Zanger. Yes.
Mr. Bogart. Yes. Absolutely.
Mr. Ose. All right.
Mr. Nielsen. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I think it is analogous to
generally accepted accounting principles. Generally accepted--
well the GASP would be the acronym, so you would not want that.
But something like that, that we and the country with whom we
have the bilateral or the multilateral agreement agrees these
are the principles. And then, there should be no argument and
if there disruption or distortion that occurs, then you can go
to the WTO. That is where we would need this special crops
person in the STR's office to help us make the case.
Mr. Ose. Sam.
Mr. Farr. Let me shift for a moment on two issues that came
up before Congress right now; one is the country of origin. As
you know, we were able to in the appropriations bill delay for
2 years the implementation. As I have been discussing with Bob
Nielsen and others, and the chairman can reflect on this, too,
let me just tell you the attitude.
I think that post-September 11 there is a big push in
America to buy American, be America; everything is American. We
put riders on everything saying you got to buy--military has to
buy American, State Department has to buy American. I mean, it
gets difficult to implement, but it points out that there is a
political sentiment there that we are going to do that. That
runs sort of contrary because we have over time, particularly
the automobile industry, has a requirement every single part in
your car has to be labeled. Things like spark plugs that you do
not even look at. Your ties and your coats, and everything in
clothing in America is labeled. So, the American consumer has
been getting accustomed to looking at labels. And, I think,
that is what feeds this politic in Washington.
Obviously, just saying ``Buy American'' and then writing
regulations and put the oneous on you as the growers and the
shippers doesn't work. And, that is why we have delayed it.
The question here is do you think the industry can find a
way to create a voluntary program or something that might meet
that political demand that I sense, and maybe it will fade in
time? But I do not see it immediately happening. Because there
was a lot of people very critical of the fact that we delayed
the implementation of the ``Buy America.'' We delayed it
because it would not work and it was not fair to put all the
oneous on you.
Mr. D'Arrigo. Well, Western Growers, we believe in the
concept that the consumer does have the right to know where
their produce is coming from. That is the big picture. Now, the
rules of engagement and implementation serve to complicate the
matter tremendously because the pressure that the retailer has
put on incorrectly to the shipper saying well that is your
problem and trying to label these things at the farm level,
such as a picture behind you, trying to label a head of romain
and something presents quite a problem of cost and really it is
not feasible, to tell you the truth.
Now, one possible solution that people are talking about is
produce grown in this country in the supermarkets, does it have
to be labeled? Can it be presumed to be American, U.S. grown
and foreign product brought in will be labeled with a placard
up on top so at least you know that if it is not labeled, it
is----
Mr. Farr. It is imported?
Mr. D'Arrigo. If it is not labeled to be United States, if
it is imported then the retailer would have to put up that this
did come from Mexico or wherever. Trying to cut the costs out
of the equation a little bit. Kind of like who is going to pay
for it kind of thing and nobody wants to pay for it.
You could see the problem at the labor side, speaking of
the labor issue, trying to get all these farm workers to label
all these heads of lettuce. The cost would be so prohibitive,
you might as well just not go in the field.
Mr. Farr. So, leave it to a country a generic or could you
just say that it is imported produce. The problem is that the
groceries then say well we cannot do that because we do not
know. We just buy this stuff and we do not know what comes
from--actually the box, as you know, because we are very proud
of saying, the box tells you where it comes from. Just take the
label off the box.
Mr. D'Arrigo. Well, that is one of our arguments is that a
lot of stuff today is packaged and that is easily printable and
you can put on USA or some other place. But when it is a bulk
item, I mean who is responsible for that? Well, I really think
it is in the retailer's corner to put that up there and just
have a simple placard up on top of the whole display saying
this came from Chile or wherever. And, that is provided to the
retailer.
Mr. Farr. People might be surprised to find out that
bananas are not grown in the United States.
Mr. D'Arrigo. You are exactly right. You would be
surprised--they do not know where a lot of things are coming
from.
Now, speaking of that issue, a lot of people have called,
they are interested in knowing more where their produce is
coming from in the light of the recent problems with the
Mexican green onions.
Mr. Farr. Yes.
Mr. D'Arrigo. People want to know and have a choice that if
I do not want to get produce from a certain country because
their record may be suspect, I think they have that right to
know that.
Mr. Nielsen. Congressman Farr, the fact of the matter is
the Farm bill mandates country of origin labeling now in 2
years. The ``Buy America'' concept I think from our perspective
is a bit of a red herring. I mean, we do not buy only American
oil or American electricity, or American high tech parts
because they come from China. This is a global economy and a
global world. We bring in products from other countries.
My company has a manufacturing plant in Quebec. We ship
California lettuce in bulk up to Quebec, combine it with local
carrots and then we bring them here. But, we do do bilingually
label because we sell those up there too.
We bring those products then down and sell them in the
northeast. Well, under the earlier proposed regs there was no
space on a bag to put all the information required.
I think the issue that we have here is that consumers do
have a right to know where their products come from if they
want to know under Customs laws as they now stand. As you said,
the boxes have to be labeled. The country of origin is known.
It is the bulk product that does not have that right now. What
has happened is that the Congress, we presume the Senate will
vote on January 20th to agree with the House, the Congress is
providing our industry with 2 years within which to work
something out. The retailers who are the reason why we are
price takers now, as Mr. D'Arrigo said, are the folks who have
said to the farmer you tell us where this is coming from. And,
it has backed up the chain to us.
What we believe as a company, and I think some others in
the industry believe, is that there has to be 2 years now worth
of hard work under this umbrella that we have been given by the
Congress presumably when the Senate votes, and we think it is
important somehow maybe in this act to authorize and direct
USDA conduct research that would give us on an unbiased and
factual basis what do consumers want.
Our own research in our company indicates that with regard
to some crops, they do not care where it comes from. They just
want it seasonally and they want it fresh, and it has to taste
good. It could come from Mongolia. It does not, but it could.
That is where I think where we need to go.
The law as it now stands is very limited. The green onion
problem would not have been reached by the country of origin
labeling law as it now stands because it does not apply to food
service. It does not poultry. We think a voluntary consumer
driven approach is the way to go, but we need to find out what
consumers want, and we think that is where the USDA, if perhaps
guided by this act and funded, could give us some help.
Mr. Zanger. Can I chime in here?
Mr. Ose. Sure. Go ahead.
Mr. Zanger. I am going to take a little bit different
perspective. And, you know, myself and California Farm Bureau
has the utmost respect for companies like Tanimura & Antle. No
question about what they do.
We just concluded our annual meeting in Long Beach on
Wednesday. And, Wednesday morning we voted and reaffirmed our
policy for country of origin labeling to be implemented as soon
as possible. Congressman Farr, you have been supportive of that
for a long time now, and thank you for that.
The way we see it is the import lobby and the domestic
retailers, there is about five chains that control perhaps 65
percent, 67 percent of the domestic market here. They do not
want to do the country of origin labeling. They want to be able
to buy product from wherever they can get it to satisfy their
customers and make their highest margin.
U.S. producers figure if every product is labeled or the
display is labeled, domestic consumers will have the
opportunity to make a choice. We think they will choose more
often, not always, but more often to buy U.S. product over
imported product. That will help us with our oversupply
situation that keeps our prices down. It is over supply that
keeps the prices down.
You know the cost to label this stuff, every apple has a
sticker on it. Every orange has a sticker on it. Broccoli
bunches have rubber bands on it. Carrots and celery stalks have
these little wire strip things on it. Cauliflower, you see it
wrapped. Lettuce you see wrapped.
We are already doing it. I think that is a red herring that
the import lobbyists and the domestic retailers are throwing at
us saying it is going to cost too much, the growers are going
to have to pay for it and they cannot afford it, they are
already not making it. We would like to see implementation
immediately. We are reviewing the rules that are going to be
discussed in January before Congress. We are ready to go with
this now.
Mr. Farr. Two things that I would just like some comments
on. Perchlorate a big problem. It gets sort of back to this
whole--I mean, as in origin labeling is, is who is liable and
what should the growers and--where is their role in this.
Let us speak for perchlorate, and then I will have my last
question.
Mr. D'Arrigo. What specifically do you want to know about
perchlorate?
Mr. Farr. Well, yes. It is raising a lot of eyebrows as to
how we treat it, how we eliminate it.
Mr. Ose. The question is how it manifests itself in
specially crops and its impact on your ability to produce and
sell your product. Is perchlorate truly a threat that has been
described in some of the more hyperbolic things or is it
something else? How do we get to a conclusion on this?
Mr. D'Arrigo. Well, on perchlorate, clearly it is a water
quality issue. OK? All of us who produce product down the
Imperial Valley and also over in Yuma, we are using the
Colorado River basin water. That water has been contaminated by
rocket fuel producing plants primarily, who have dumped
perchlorate or leached or who now closed and the residual is
leaching into the water system. That needs to be addressed
ASAP. We feel it is a Federal problem. A Department of Defense
problem.
Sound science is needed. That clearly is the answer: What
are the risks? What are tolerances needed on perchlorate? None
of that has really been developed yet. How it manifests itself?
Some say it concentrates in certain types of produce more than
others. This is a national problem because the food supply, as
we said earlier, 50 percent of it comes from these shippers
that produce not only here or there. Here we do not really have
the perchlorate problem in the Salinas Valley. However, it is
right up the street here in Morgan Hill, I understand.
I think Congress should get into this with a very heavy
hand and not let the responsibility be waived away or exempted.
I think that Department of Defense with these contractors who
produce this should be responsible for cleaning up this
problem. And then, direct sound science to determine what are
the safe tolerances for perchlorate, because it is not going to
go away for a while.
Mr. Bogart. Yes, if I could be heard on this just briefly.
I agree a lot with what John just said. That term keeps coming
up over and over again, and it is ``sound science.'' I mean,
yes, it is there. Yes, it is been detected in a percentage of
samples of lettuce that were taken. But what is the risk? Is
there a risk at all? We do not know. We need studies. We need
science. And, you know, the industry and ag associations have
stepped up to the plate to fund and pursue and assist in this
research. Because if it is bad, we want to know. But that is
the thing, it is like perception governs. And, perception
impacts markets. Perception impacts our ability to be a viable
industry. If the general public thinks that their lettuce is
laced with rocket fuel, they are not going to purchase it. They
are not going to eat it. They hear that. It is a crescendo.
And, you say, ``But wait, but wait. We are trying to conduct
these studies. There are no studies that even validate what
some people are telling you about this lettuce.''
It is again sound science. It is making rational, informed
judgments. That is what we want. perchlorate is a darn good
example of it. You can see examples of this everywhere. And so,
I think the perchlorate question is a good one with respect to
this ``sound science.''
Mr. Ose. I have done some research on this. I probably do
not know as much as some of the other people in this room. We
are a little bit afar afield on this, it is tangential but not
central to the issue we are dealing with today.
As I understand it there are few if any studies as to what
the threshold of human toxicity is relative to perchlorate.
There are a few if any studies establishing which crops, if you
will, might be suspectable to the lodging of perchlorate in
their end product. And, in fact, there are studies if I am
correct in this--I am reaching far afield here. But I think the
chemical equivalent of perchlorate in the medical industry is
used to treat hypothyroid.
Mr. D'Arrigo. That is correct.
Mr. Ose. Hypothyroid.
Mr. D'Arrigo. You are correct in that case.
Mr. Ose. I am more than a little confused as to, if you
will, some of the more boisterous claims about the dangers that
perchlorate may pose, especially when the levels found in the
lettuce are less than the levels used to treat hypothyroid.
Mr. D'Arrigo. You are sounding like a rational person. The
rest of the country is not so rational about this issue. But
you are right on every case there.
Mr. Ose. Yes. The fact of the matter is, we are lacking
some significant amounts of information here.
Mr. D'Arrigo. That is correct.
Mr. Ose. All right.
Do you remember your other question?
Mr. Farr. No. My cold and my age, I have forgotten my last
question.
So, I just want to thank you very much for having this
hearing here. It is probably the first that we have ever had
that sort of highlight specialty crops. But it is interesting
that a person who is not a member of Ag Committee is doing it.
And I really do respect and thank you for----
Mr. Ose. I am a member of the Ag Committee.
Mr. Farr. Well, I mean the committee----
Mr. Ose. Oh, Government Reform?
Mr. Farr. Government Reform and you are chairman of the
subcommittee. In this room we are preaching to the choir, but
we are trying to get specialty crops on the national
recognition list. To me it is the motherhood of agriculture. It
is the apple pie. And, we in America do not know that. We have
all this big advertising about the big corn belt. We are even
going to have use corn now. I mean, what Congress determined
this year in their energy bill is that corn is for driving cars
and specialty crops are for eating.
Mr. Ose. How is that?
Mr. Farr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Ose. Here is the connection for those struggling with
why is Government Reform doing this. This subcommittee also has
jurisdiction over national economic regulatory issues, meaning
how does Government policy effect the ability of this or that
regional economy to contribute to the national economy as a
whole. And, while I straddle the two committees as well as
Financial Services, I can tell you that this issue especially,
crops and the success therein, is not only important on the ag
side, it is also important regionally here in Salinas, and,
from an economic standpoint it is important here in this State.
We are the fifth or sixth largest economy in the world. We have
35 million people here. So it is not curious that we are having
this hearing. I just wanted to clarify that.
I do want to come back to----
Mr. Farr. But thank you.
Mr. Ose. I want to come back to one other thing if I may.
Mr. Bogart, one of the things effecting the ability
particularly of specialty crops to put their product into
foreign markets is the ability to say to those foreign markets,
for instance, this product is clean. We do not have pests. We
do not have disease. That gets me to the use of methyl bromide
and our request for some increased number of critical use
exemptions under the Montreal protocols. How has the recent
decision to decline to increase those number of critical use
exemptions from methyl bromide affected the specialty crop
industry?
For that matter, I mean I would open that to anybody on
this panel for any input.
Mr. D'Arrigo. Well, I think it is going to render us
uncompetitive. Until we find a viable alternative to methyl
bromide, we will have serious problems competing. Our costs are
going to skyrocket. The people we are competing against are
still using methyl bromide. Again, the playing field becomes
increasingly unlevel and I see disaster looming.
Mr. Ose. OK. So you would advocate that the position of the
Federal Government, until we have an appropriate and----
Mr. D'Arrigo. Effective?
Mr. Ose [continuing]. Effective and efficient substitute
for the properties that methyl bromide brings, we ought to be
adamant about demanding critical use exemptions?
Mr. D'Arrigo. Absolutely.
Mr. Ose. OK. Mr. Nielsen, do you agree with that?
Mr. Nielsen. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Either that or we ban its
being used in the Third World. I mean, this is an example of
the unlevel playing field where free trade, the law of
comparative advantage is distorted because environmental laws
are not being applied uniformly around the world.
Mr. Ose. OK.
Mr. Bogart. As Mr. D'Arrigo said in response to one of my
earlier comments, I concur.
Mr. Ose. Mr. Zanger.
Mr. Zanger. I agree with them.
Mr. Ose. OK. I just wanted to get that on the record here.
One of the things in our hearing in Washington, which Mr.
McInerney attended, that we spent a lot of time talking about
was the interaction between the Department of Homeland Security
and APHIS at the border, this one face at the border kind of
thing. And, I know the industry has been meeting with DHS to
try and address some of the concerns that have been
highlighted. Have you been making progress? Are any of you
involved in that or cognizant of what is going on?
Mr. Nielsen. No, I am not personally involved in that. I'm
not.
Mr. Bogart. I am not.
Mr. Ose. Mr. Zanger.
Mr. D'Arrigo. I'm not.
Mr. Zanger. We feel that progress is being made. I do not
know the specifics of it, but we were very concerned when
Homeland Security was being formed as an agency and APHIS was
going in that direction. But we have been receiving assurances
on how that--how this new makeup is and that we are getting the
proper attention.
Mr. Ose. Well, I am very concerned about how it gets
implemented. Because I am also aware that originally they were
talking about 2 days of training for their one face at the
border people to deal with this, and then they had some bogus
argument about dogs being multi-tasked, and what have you. We
are not going to go there today. But, I just want make sure
that we keep our focus on how important APHIS' role is in
bringing food in and out of this country as it effects our
Department of Homeland Security.
Congressman Farr, we are at the point where we are ready
for closing statements. I am talked out. You indicated you
might have one.
Mr. Farr. Well, I want to wish you happy holidays and
remind you that people will eat more specialty crops during
these holidays than any other kind of crop in America. And, I
would like to suggest that we all go out and enjoy a very
health lunch in the valley of the sun.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Ose. Thank you, Congressman Farr for hosting us today.
It is always great to come down here. This really is just one
of the wonders of the world to come to your district and see
this kind of production in agriculture.
Today we focused on the domestic international issues
facing the specialty crop industry. Obviously, the decline that
we have seen in U.S. exports coupled with the rise in imports
to this country has effected us rather dramatically. We have
talked about how foreign trade barriers, subsidies, tariffs,
and sanitary, phytosanitary standards all affect our people and
how these factors may twist what might otherwise be a natural
outcome in the industry.
Congressman Farr and I have heard your concerns, not only
here but also in Washington. We are aware of the vulnerability
of the industry and the challenges you face. The purpose of
H.R. 3242 is to try and bring Federal policy to bear to address
those. I want to reiterate that I am most appreciative of your
support of that legislation. We now have 52 cosponsors from 21
different States. You can see the breadth of interest in this.
We will continue to work toward getting that magic triple digit
number of a 100. This is going to be a heavy lift. I just want
to be clear, there is not a single one of these cosponsors who
thinks it is program crops or specialty crops. This is not a
competition. It is not A or B. It is A and B. All right. I want
to be very careful that we make that clear to people; it is A
and B. Because the people who grow A, they or their neighbors
also grow B. So, it is not mutually exclusive.
Anyway, it is always a delight to come down to this part of
the State. I mean, you ordered up Chamber of Commerce weather
for me. I am most grateful.
Mr. Farr. It did not rain today.
Mr. Ose. That must be because you are on the Appropriations
Committee. Because you are powerful.
So, anyway, I want to thank our witnesses for joining us
today. We are going to leave the record open for 10 days. We
may have questions that occur to us as we travel back to D.C.
here in the next couple of days. And, we will forward them. We
would appreciate a timely response.
Anything you want to add? You are set? OK.
With that, we thank you all for joining us. This hearing is
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:19 p.m. the field hearing was adjourned].