[House Hearing, 111 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

HEARING TO REVIEW IMPLEMENTATION OF THE HORTICULTURE AND ORGANIC
AGRICULTURE TITLE OF THE FOOD, CONSERVATION, AND ENERGY ACT OF 2008

=======================================================================

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON
HORTICULTURE AND ORGANIC AGRICULTURE

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

__________

OCTOBER 28, 2009

__________

Serial No. 111-34

Printed for the use of the Committee on Agriculture
agriculture.house.gov

----------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

53-831 PDF WASHINGTON : 2009

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP,
Washington, DC 20402-0001

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE

COLLIN C. PETERSON, Minnesota, Chairman

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania, FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma, Ranking
Vice Chairman Minority Member
MIKE McINTYRE, North Carolina BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia
LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa JERRY MORAN, Kansas
JOE BACA, California TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois
DENNIS A. CARDOZA, California SAM GRAVES, Missouri
DAVID SCOTT, Georgia MIKE ROGERS, Alabama
JIM MARSHALL, Georgia STEVE KING, Iowa
STEPHANIE HERSETH SANDLIN, South RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas
Dakota K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas
HENRY CUELLAR, Texas JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska
JIM COSTA, California JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio
BRAD ELLSWORTH, Indiana ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska
TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin DAVID P. ROE, Tennessee
KURT SCHRADER, Oregon BLAINE LUETKEMEYER, Missouri
DEBORAH L. HALVORSON, Illinois GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania
KATHLEEN A. DAHLKEMPER, BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana
Pennsylvania CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming
ERIC J.J. MASSA, New York
BOBBY BRIGHT, Alabama
BETSY MARKEY, Colorado
FRANK KRATOVIL, Jr., Maryland
MARK H. SCHAUER, Michigan
LARRY KISSELL, North Carolina
JOHN A. BOCCIERI, Ohio
SCOTT MURPHY, New York
EARL POMEROY, North Dakota
TRAVIS W. CHILDERS, Mississippi
WALT MINNICK, Idaho

______

Professional Staff

Robert L. Larew, Chief of Staff

Andrew W. Baker, Chief Counsel

April Slayton, Communications Director

Nicole Scott, Minority Staff Director

______

Subcommittee on Horticulture and Organic Agriculture

DENNIS A. CARDOZA, California, Chairman

ERIC J.J. MASSA, New York JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio, Ranking
JIM COSTA, California Minority Member
KURT SCHRADER, Oregon JERRY MORAN, Kansas
FRANK KRATOVIL, Jr., Maryland TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois
SCOTT MURPHY, New York CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming

Keith Jones, Subcommittee Staff Director

(ii)

C O N T E N T S

----------
Page
Cardoza, Hon. Dennis A., a Representative in Congress from
California, opening statement.................................. 1
Prepared statement........................................... 3
Peterson, Hon. Collin C., a Representative in Congress from
Minnesota, prepared statement.................................. 5
Schmidt, Hon. Jean, a Representative in Congress from Ohio,
opening statement.............................................. 4

Witness

Pegg, Rayne, Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service, U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.; accompanied by
Cindy Smith, Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture........................ 6
Prepared statement........................................... 8
Supplementary material....................................... 23

HEARING TO REVIEW IMPLEMENTATION OF THE HORTICULTURE AND ORGANIC
AGRICULTURE TITLE OF THE FOOD, CONSERVATION, AND ENERGY ACT OF 2008

----------

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 28, 2009

House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Horticulture and Organic
Agriculture,
Committee on Agriculture,
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:03 a.m., in
Room 1300, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Dennis A.
Cardoza [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Members present: Representatives Cardoza, Costa, Schrader,
Murphy, Schmidt, and Moran.
Staff present: Christy Birdsong, Alejandra Gonzalez-Arias,
Keith Jones, John Konya, Scott Kuschmider, James Ryder,
Patricia Barr, John Goldberg, Pam Miller, Jamie Mitchell, and
Sangina Wright.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DENNIS A. CARDOZA, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM CALIFORNIA

The Chairman. Ladies and gentlemen, welcome. The appointed
hour having arrived, I would like to call this hearing of the
Subcommittee on Horticulture and Organic Agriculture to review
the implementation of the Horticulture and Organic Agriculture
Title of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008. The
hearing will now come to order.
We will start with opening statements. I will begin with my
opening statement and then I will turn it over to my Ranking
Member, Mrs. Schmidt.
I want to thank you all for taking the time out of your
busy schedules to attend today's important hearing and to
review the Department of Agriculture's performance in employing
what we refer to fondly as the farm bill.
The 2008 Farm Bill was a landmark in United States
agriculture policy for many reasons, but perhaps none as
important as its recognition of specialty crops, including
fruit, vegetables, tree nuts, floriculture, nursery crops, and
organic agriculture. The 2008 Farm Bill dedicates almost $3
billion in funding over 5 years to areas of critical importance
to these sectors, including nutrition, research, pest and
disease, trade, conservation, and expansion of market
operations and opportunities.
For the first time, the 2008 Farm Bill established a
separate title to deal with, specifically, issues related to
specialty crops and organic agriculture. It is within Title X
that these sectors of American agriculture find their home in a
proper place in the living history of U.S. agriculture policy.
Congress took this long overdue action for many reasons.
First, specialty crops make up a substantial share of U.S.
cropland value. In 2006, specialty crops were grown on only
four percent of the total harvested cropland, but they
accounted for $53 billion, or 44 percent, of U.S. crop
receipts.
Second, specialty crops represent the great diversity of
production across the United States. For example, California,
Florida, and Texas harvest the largest share of fresh fruit,
vegetables, and melon acreage. California is the largest
producer of grapes, strawberries, peaches, nectarines,
avocados, kiwifruit, and leads in fresh market orange
production and tree nut production.
The Upper Midwest and Northwest have the largest vegetable
acreage for processing. Florida is the largest producer of
citrus and citrus juices. Washington is the largest producer
for both fresh and processing apples. Midwestern and
northeastern states such as Ohio, and New York are other
important producers of fresh fruits and vegetables.
Floriculture production takes place in over 40 different
states. Nursery crops are produced in 17 states, with Oregon
and Pennsylvania leading the pack.
The growing consumer demand for locally grown foods is
causing states like Maryland to increase fruit and vegetable
production as well. To ignore these important states and their
vital crops would have been irresponsible and bad policy.
Furthermore, despite predictions of a slump in consumer
demand due to economic distress, organic food sales are
actually bucking the trend, and in the United States grew by 15
percent in 2008, to $22.9 billion. Organic food sales now count
for approximately 3.5 percent of all U.S. food products sold in
the country.
These impressive statistics underline the importance of
developing and implementing policies that will continue to
encourage growth in these sectors. There is likely no one at
this dais or in the audience who doesn't remember our mothers
telling us to eat your fruits and vegetables daily.
A growing body of research shows that fruits and vegetables
are critical to promoting good health. Over the past 30 years
or so, researchers have developed a solid base of science to
back up what generations of our mothers predicted and preached:
that eating your fruits and vegetables is one of the tried and
true recommendations for a healthy diet. I wish I had listened
more to mom.
Today's panel is narrowly focused on specialty crop
provisions within Title X, so as to permit Subcommittee Members
ample time to discuss the implementation process with USDA. It
is my intent to hold other more expansive hearings on issues
related to Title X in the future.
I am particularly interested to receive input and
comprehensive data from AMS on the National Organic Program,
given the program's new leadership and improved funding
sources.
In closing, I view this hearing like a farmer's first walk
through the field after a planting. In the farm bill, we
planted seeds for new emphasis on specialty crops and organic
agriculture. Today, we will examine what has sprouted. We are
anxious to see what USDA is doing to cultivate these new
programs, and look forward to an abundant harvest.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Cardoza follows:]

Prepared Statement of Hon. Dennis A. Cardoza, a Representative in
Congress from California
Thank you for taking time from your very busy schedules to attend
today's important hearing to review the Department of Agriculture's
performance in implementing the Horticulture and Organic Agriculture
Title of The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008.
The 2008 Farm Bill was a landmark in U.S. agricultural policy for
many reasons, but perhaps none as important as its recognition of
specialty crops including fruit, vegetables, tree nuts, floriculture,
and nursery crops, and organic agriculture.
The 2008 Farm Bill dedicates almost $3 billion in funding over 5
years to areas of critical importance to these sectors including
nutrition, research, pest and disease management, trade, conservation
and expansion of market opportunities.
For the first time, the 2008 Farm Bill established a separate title
to deal specifically with issues related to specialty crops and organic
agriculture. It is within Title X that these sectors of American
agriculture find their home and proper place in the living history of
U.S. agriculture policy.
Congress took this long overdue action for many reasons. First,
specialty crops make up a substantial share of U.S. cropland production
value. In 2006, specialty crops were grown on only 4% of the total
harvested cropland, but they accounted for $53 billion or 44% of total
U.S. crop receipts.
Second, specialty crops represent the great diversity of production
across the United States. For example, California, Florida and Texas
harvest the largest share of fresh vegetable and melon acreage.
California is the largest producer of grapes, strawberries, peaches,
nectarines, avocados, and kiwifruit and leads in fresh-market orange
production and tree nut production.
The Upper Midwest and Northwest have the largest vegetable acreage
for processing. Florida is the largest producer of citrus and citrus
juices.
Washington is the largest apple producer for both fresh and
processing. Midwestern and northeastern states such as Ohio and New
York are other important producers of fruits and vegetables.
Floriculture production takes place in 40 different states. Nursery
crops are produced in 17 states with the Oregon, and Pennsylvania
leading the pack.
The growing consumer demand for locally grown foods are causing
states like Maryland to increase fruit and vegetable production. To
ignore these important states and their vital crops would have been
irresponsible and bad policy.
Furthermore, despite predictions of a slump in consumer demand due
to economic distress, organic food sales in the U.S. grew by 15 percent
in 2008 to $22.9 billion. Organic food sales now account for
approximately 3.5 percent of all food product sales in the United
States.
These impressive statistics underline the importance of developing
and implementing policies that will continue to encourage growth in
these sectors.
There is likely no one at the dais or in the audience who doesn't
remember our mothers telling us to ``Eat your fruits and vegetables''.
A growing body of research shows that fruits and vegetables are
critical to promoting good health. Over the past 30 years or so,
researchers have developed a solid base of science to back up what
generations of mothers preached: that eating fruits and vegetables is
one of the tried and true recommendations for a healthy diet.
Today's panel is narrowly focused on the specialty crop provisions
within Title X, so as to permit Subcommittee Members ample time to
discuss the implementation process with USDA.
It is my intent to hold other, more expansive hearings, on issues
related to Title X. I am particularly interested to receive a
comprehensive update from AMS on the National Organic Program, given
the program's new leadership and improved funding.
In closing, I view this hearing like a farmer's first walk through
the field after planting.
In the farm bill, we planted the seeds for a new emphasis on
specialty crops and organic agriculture. Today we'll examine what has
sprouted.
We're anxious to see what USDA is doing to cultivate these new
programs, and look forward to an abundant harvest.
With that, I now yield time to Ranking Member Schmidt for her
opening statement.

The Chairman. With that, I will now yield time to Ranking
Member Schmidt for her opening comments.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JEAN SCHMIDT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM OHIO

Mrs. Schmidt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
holding this hearing to review the implementation of the
Horticulture and Organic Agriculture title of the 2008 Farm
Bill.
While specialty crop and organic producers also benefit
from programs contained in other titles of the farm bill, I
understand today we will hear from the USDA specifically on
those programs within Title X. Many of these programs were in
place prior to this farm bill, and I look forward to hearing
how the USDA has built upon the original framework to expand
these programs and implement those that are new.
Specialty crop and organic producers across the nation have
the opportunity to benefit from the farm bill, but only if the
integrity of the programs is protected. U.S. producers work
hard to provide consumers with a variety of safe and abundant
food. It is crucial that we all do our part by ensuring these
programs are implemented in a timely and appropriate manner.
Outside of the farm bill, there is another new initiative
underway at the USDA called Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food,
to promote sustainable local and regional food systems that
support small and midsize operations. This initiative is not
part of the farm bill, but it has been incorporated into the
Farmers Market Promotion Program, the Specialty Crop Block
Grant Program, and elsewhere.
While I certainly support small- and medium-sized farmers
marketing their commodities locally, in reading the USDA's
press material on the initiative, it makes me wonder if this
Administration is choosing one sector of the agricultural
community over another.
The Food and Agricultural Organization has stated that food
production will have to rise 70 percent in the next 4 decades
to feed the world by 2050. With information like this coming
from the United Nations Voice for World Food and Agricultural
Needs, it is important that the USDA support all producers,
regardless of their size or how far they transport their
products to market, if we are going to meet such a high demand.
I look forward to hearing from the USDA today on the
progress that has been made to implement the horticulture and
organic provisions of the farm bill.
I thank the witnesses for joining us, and I yield back my
time.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mrs. Schmidt. I appreciate your
testimony. The chair would request that other Members submit
their opening statements for the record.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Peterson follows:]

Prepared Statement of Hon. Collin C. Peterson, a Representative in
Congress from Minnesota
I want to echo Chairman Cardoza's opening statement and thank him
and Ranking Member Schmidt for their leadership on this Subcommittee. I
also want to thank both of them for their work in the last Congress in
helping pass a farm bill with a strong Horticulture and Organic
Agriculture title. I look forward to hearing from USDA this morning
about implementation of the title thus far, and what remains to be
accomplished.
This Subcommittee was created at the beginning of the 110th
Congress in order to focus more attention on specialty crops, organic
agriculture, and local food networks, all of which are sectors of the
farm economy that continue to show promise because of the potential for
improved bottom lines for farmers, even in tough economic times.
The 2008 Farm Bill was the first to include a title for fruit and
vegetable production, and I believe the bill is responsible for a lot
of great things that have yet to be recognized and fully appreciated.
The farm bill provided over $450 million in mandatory funding to expand
the specialty crop block grant program, increasing the amount of USDA
purchases of fruits and vegetables for use in school lunch and other
feeding programs.
The farm bill expanded access to locally grown food via expansion
of the Farmers' Market Promotion Program and by providing new resources
to combat the prevalence of urban food deserts. The farm bill provided
new funding to support organic farmers as well as farmers who want to
move into organic production. We helped fruit and vegetable producers
address food safety, pest and disease management issues, and we poured
resources into studying and combating Colony Collapse Disorder, which
has been a chief concern of specialty crop producers nationwide.
With expansion of existing programs and the creation of new ones,
now is a good time to take stock of where we are at with implementation
and what we can expect in the near future.
Many of these programs are important not only to my district, but
they are of great interest to many of us in Congress. Just about every
state has some form of dedicated commercial specialty crop production.
And areas like value-added agriculture and local food networks hold
great promise as economic engines for rural communities everywhere. In
my district, for example, there is a growing market demand for local
food supplies, which is why I have already sponsored two local food
conferences and will be doing so once again next February.
I am proud of what we did in the farm bill to assist growers who
want to tap into these new opportunities. I look forward to Chairman
Cardoza and Ranking Member Schmidt examining Title X in greater detail
in future hearings.
I commend them again for their leadership, I welcome today's USDA
witnesses and I yield back my time.

The Chairman. I would like to call forward our witnesses
today. It gives me great pleasure to introduce and welcome a
fellow Californian to the hearing this morning.
We have with us today Rayne Pegg, Administrator of USDA's
Agricultural Marketing Service, who will be presenting
testimony on behalf of USDA. She is joined this morning at the
witness table by Cindy Smith, Administrator of the Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Service. Ms. Smith, we are pleased to
welcome you as well.
I have to tell the assembled folks here, and I am sure it
will get back to them, when I first welcomed the Secretary and
Deputy Secretary Merrigan, I told them they were fine people,
they just weren't from California. That was a big problem in my
book.
I will tell you since then, that they have just been
fabulous and they have came out to visit us, and I really
appreciated getting to know them and I consider them friends.
And I think that is a major accomplishment after this short a
period of time. I think that they are doing a very admirable
job at the Department, but it's always great to have a
Californian in the Department.
Ms. Pegg, you are welcome to begin your testimony. Welcome
to the Committee.

STATEMENT OF RAYNE PEGG, ADMINISTRATOR,
AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,
WASHINGTON, D.C.; ACCOMPANIED BY CINDY SMITH, ADMINISTRATOR,
ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE

Ms. Pegg. Thank you very much. It is a great introduction.
Thank you, Chairman Cardoza and Ranking Member Schmidt, for the
opportunity to update you on the implementation of Title X of
the farm bill. Cindy Smith is joining me today to answer any
APHIS-specific questions.
The farm bill provided the Department with a roadmap for
addressing many of the challenges that rural America is facing
today. It is the foundation of many of the Department's
initiatives to bring wealth to rural America, and implementing
the farm bill is one of the Secretary's top priorities.
I want to update you on the activities regarding section
32. An independent study and evaluation of the purchasing
processes of section 32 is underway and is expected to be out
in January 2010. Using section 32 funds, AMS purchased
approximately $472 million in fruits and vegetables in 2009.
Our total USDA purchases, using all our funding sources for
fruits and vegetables, was over $640 million in 2009.
Many of the grant programs under Title X are focused on
making more specialty crops available to consumers and tackling
the challenges that growers are facing. Many of these programs
support the Department's Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food
initiative.
The bill extended the Farmers Market Promotion Program to
2012, and this has been an extremely popular program. Recently,
we received over 450 applications for this grant program and we
only awarded 86 grants and distributed more than $4.5 million
in 2009; eighteen percent of those funds went to support EBT
projects throughout the United States. This exceeded the ten
percent requirement in the farm bill that funds be used to
support electronic benefits transfer at farmers' markets.
AMS also administers a Specialty Crops Block Grant Program
which has been extremely successful for states to tackle the
challenges its growers are facing and make them competitive in
the coming years. USDA administers the program according to the
statute and regulations, and recently announced approximately
$49 million in 2009 for 745 projects. In 2010 through 2012, $55
million will be available. To ensure that states have more time
to develop grants and receive funds in 2010, next month, we
will be announcing the availability of funds in 2010, with
applications due in June of 2010.
Providing market information to growers is an important
tool in making business decisions. AMS has enhanced market news
systems for organic products as well as specialty crops.
Congress and the Administration recognize the National
Organic Program needs more resources due to the growth in
organic industry and the importance of protecting its
integrity. Many changes to the program have been made. In
Fiscal Year 2009, Congress appropriated $3.86 million, and in
2010 increased that funding to a total of $6.96 million. The
program is undergoing an independent audit and peer review by
the National Institute of Standards and Technology.
It became an independent program within AMS, giving it more
visibility in the Department. We hired Miles McEvoy as the
Deputy Administrator to the program. He brings 20 years of
experience in the organic industry.
Over the course of the next 6 months, we will be hiring ten
additional staff for the program. This will greatly increase
the staffing of the program, strengthening the enforcement and
compliance components within the National Organic Program.
AMS implemented the National Organic Certification Cost-
Share Program, as required in the farm bill. We increased
reimbursement from $500 to $750, and in 2009 we distributed
$4.3 million. In October of 2009, we announced the availability
of funds for Fiscal Year 2010. We recognize there have been
some issues with the distribution of funds through this
program, and AMS is addressing this issue and working on
getting funds out more quickly to states.
AMS carried out the provisions in the farm bill that
addressed many of the issues our domestic apiary producers are
dealing with. A national research and promotion program for
honey packers and importers was established in May 2008. With
the approval of that program, a termination of the previous
order was done in April 2009.
AMS is currently reviewing comments to establish a research
and promotion program for domestic producers, and country-of-
origin labeling for honey products became effective in October
2009.
For APHIS, we appreciate the attention paid in the farm
bill to addressing the devastating plant pests and diseases
that can cause significant damage to our agricultural and
natural resources. Invasive threats such as the emerald ash
borer, Asian citrus psyllid, sudden oak death, and many more,
have no jurisdictional bounds, and it takes a comprehensive
team approach to combat them effectively.
In 2009, APHIS allocated full funding of $12 million and
worked in cooperation with the National Plant Board, Federal,
state, academic, and other organizations to develop a 5 year
strategic plan to implement the plant pest and disease and
disaster management provision of the farm bill. This strategy
is focused on enhancing pest survey and identification tools,
and increasing outreach and education to the public on the
importance of our eradication and control programs.
APHIS has also made significant progress in addressing the
agency's regulation of the products of biotechnology. We are
now considering the public input as we decide on the best way
to move forward. Our goal is to ensure that now and in the
future, our regulations will always be strong enough to meet
the demands of this science.
Thank you for the opportunity to give an update to the
Committee. We are available for questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Pegg follows:]

Prepared Statement of Rayne Pegg, Administrator, Agricultural Marketing
Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.
Chairman Cardoza, Ranking Member Schmidt and Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to appear before you today at
this hearing to review the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA)
implementation of the Horticulture and Organic Agriculture Title (Title
X) of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (Farm Bill).
USDA's Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) and the Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Agency (APHIS) are the primary agencies with
responsibility for implementing Title X. However, there are three
sections in this title which are the responsibility of the Farm Service
Agency, the Forest Service, and the National Agricultural Statistics
Service. APHIS Administrator Cindy Smith is here with me today to
answer any APHIS-specific questions that you might have.
I can assure the Subcommittee that one of Secretary Vilsack's top
priorities is ensuring that the 2008 Farm Bill is implemented as
expeditiously as possible following the intent of Congress as enacted
in the statute. This Administration is also committed to the importance
of fresh, nutritious food and raising the profile of locally grown
food, including specialty crops and organic agriculture. President
Obama has made a safe, sustainable, and nutritious food supply a
central goal for USDA.
USDA has implemented all of the programs authorized by the farm
bill for which funding was provided. Finally, the provisions of the
farm bill that relate to quality requirements for Clementines and a
marketing order for Hass Avocados, have not been implemented as both
provisions require that an industry proposal be submitted to USDA to
initiate implementation. To date, no proposals have been submitted.
Subtitle A--Horticulture Marketing and Information
AMS administers the two grant programs covered in subtitle A. The
Specialty Crop Block Grant Program provides funding to states and
territories to enhance the competiveness of specialty crops. Sec. 10109
provided the program funding levels from the Commodity Credit
Corporation (CCC) for Fiscal Years 2008 through 2012, added
horticulture to the definition of specialty crop, and added Guam,
American Samoa, the U.S. Virgin Islands and the Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands to the list of ``states'' eligible to apply
for grants. These changes required AMS to undertake rulemaking which
was completed on March 27, 2009 with the publication of the final rule
in the Federal Register. In this final rule, AMS, per the language in
the Farm Bill's Managers Statement, required state departments of
agriculture to describe their outreach efforts to specialty crop
producers, including socially disadvantaged and beginning farmers, and
describe their efforts to conduct a competitive process to ensure
maximum public input and benefit.
Through the funding provided in the farm bill for specialty crop
block grants, AMS awarded 56 grants totaling $9.5 million in Fiscal
Year 2008 and approximately $49 million for 745 projects in Fiscal Year
2009. Nearly all of the funds were awarded to benefit small- and
medium-sized specialty crop farmers. Many of these projects focused on
the development of low- and middle-size farmers through agricultural
training opportunities, promotional and cost-share assistance, and
community network development.
The other AMS grant program covered in Subtitle A is the Farmers
Market Promotion Program (FMPP), which works to help improve and expand
domestic farmers markets, roadside stands, community-supported
agriculture programs, agri-tourism activities, and other direct
producer-to-consumer market opportunities. Sec. 10106 of the farm bill
provided CCC funds for Fiscal Years 2008 through 2012, specified
statutorily the categories of farmer-to-consumer direct marketing
activities eligible for funding under the program, and required that
not less than ten percent of the funds used to carry out the program in
a fiscal year are to be used to support the use of electronic benefits
transfers (EBT) at farmers' markets.
AMS awarded 85 FMPP grants totaling $3.5 million and covering 43
states in Fiscal Year 2008. The 85 awards went to 63 nonprofit
organizations, 12 local governments, six agriculture cooperatives, two
Tribal governments, one economic development corporation, and one
farmers market authority. Over $385,000 or 11.2 percent of the funds
awarded involved EBT activities, thus meeting the required threshold.
For Fiscal Year 2009, AMS awarded 86 grants totaling more than $4.5
million covering 37 states. The 86 awards went to 65 nonprofit
organizations, 16 local governments, two agriculture cooperatives, two
Tribal governments, and one producer network. Thirty of the 86 grants
promote the use of new EBT projects.
As with the grant programs, USDA has made great strides in
implementing the other provisions in Subtitle A. Sec. 10104 allowed for
the development of a program for good agricultural practices and good
handling practices under the Mushroom Promotion, Research and Consumer
Information Order, as well as reapportioned the membership of the
Mushroom Council to reflect shifts in domestic mushroom production. AMS
published the final rule implementing these provisions in the Federal
Register on October 2, 2009.
Sec. 10101 required USDA to arrange for an independent study and
evaluation of the purchasing processes principally devoted to
perishable agricultural commodities provided in section 32 of the Act
of August 24, 1935 (Sec. 32). AMS signed a cooperative agreement with
the University of California--Davis on September 19, 2008. The study
will examine the budgetary, statutory, and regulatory authority
underlying the processes used by the Department to make purchases under
Sec. 32. A preliminary report will be made available in January of
2010.
Sec. 10103 directed USDA to include, beginning in 2008, specialty
crops in the census of agriculture. USDA's National Agricultural
Statistics Service (NASS) met this requirement when conducting the 2007
Census of Agriculture during calendar year 2008. Also, it should be
noted that this December, NASS will begin collecting data for the
Census of Horticultural Specialties, conducted once every 10 years,
which provides a comprehensive and detailed picture of U.S.
floriculture, nursery and specialty crop operations.
Subtitle B--Pest and Disease Management
We appreciate the attention paid in the farm bill to addressing the
devastating plant pests and diseases that can cause significant damage
to our agricultural and natural resources. Invasive threats such as the
emerald ash borer, Asian citrus psyllid, sudden oak death disease, and
Asian longhorned beetle know no jurisdictional bounds, and it takes a
comprehensive, team approach to combat them effectively. In close
cooperation with the National Plant Board, Federal, state, academic,
and tribal groups, and specialty crop and other industry organizations,
our Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) has developed a
5 year strategy to implement the plant pest and disease and disaster
management provision of the farm bill. This strategy focuses on six key
areas:

(1) enhancing plant pest and disease analysis and survey;

(2) targeting domestic inspection activities at vulnerable points;

(3) enhancing pest identification tools and technology;

(4) developing programs to safeguard nursery production;

(5) enhancing outreach and education to increase public
understanding and support of plant pest and disease eradication
and control programs; and

(6) enhancing mitigation capabilities.

APHIS allocated full funding in FY 2009--$12 million, as called for
in the farm bill--to carry out this program. Throughout the summer,
APHIS conducted webinars, online surveys, and face-to-face meetings
with state partners and other stakeholders to gain input in developing
the spending plan for FY 2010. The enhanced resources provided through
the farm bill will position APHIS to develop a more proactive approach
to plant health protection, solidify partnerships with stakeholders,
and enable meaningful advances in our pest detection infrastructure.
The net effect of improving our ability to detect and respond to a
plant pest or disease in the early stages of an introduction is
significant cost savings for taxpayers and U.S. agriculture, as it
avoids the high costs of a long-term management program and helps
maintain access to international markets for U.S. producers.
Hand-in-hand with our goal of protecting U.S. agriculture from
plant pests and diseases is the need to provide reliable sources of
healthy planting stock for specialty crops. APHIS, the Agricultural
Research Service, and the National Institute of Food and Agriculture
have made significant strides in forming the National Clean Plant
Network (NCPN), as directed by the farm bill. In March 2009, the three
USDA Agencies signed a Memorandum of Understanding laying the
foundation for the NCPN at the national level and providing direction
and guidance for newly forming NCPN specialty crop networks. Two
commodity networks--the Fruit Tree Clean Plant Network and the Grape
Clean Plant Network--are currently part of the NCPN, and USDA funded
five key clean plant centers in FY 2009. There is increasing interest
for other specialty crops to become part of the NCPN, with organizing
meetings for citrus, berries (strawberries, blueberries, cranberries
and cane fruit), sweet potato, and hops scheduled in the coming months.
USDA looks forward to working with these groups as we expand the NCPN.
APHIS has also made significant progress in addressing issues
raised in the farm bill regarding the Agency's regulation of the
products of biotechnology. In October of last year, APHIS proposed a
major overhaul of its biotechnology regulations, which incorporate many
of the provisions of the farm bill, such as implementing risk-based
permit categories, requiring improved record-keeping, and clarifying
actions the Agency may take in the event of an unauthorized release of
a genetically engineered (GE) organism. We received more than 66,000
comments and held five public meetings during the comment period. We
are now considering the public input as we decide on the best way to
move forward. Our goal is to ensure that now, and in the future, our
regulations will always be strong enough to meet the demands of this
science.
APHIS is also nearing completion of the pilot phase of the new
Biotechnology Quality Management System, which encourages developers to
adopt auditable best-management practices for movements and outdoor
releases of regulated GE organisms. In addition, we are taking steps to
improve, where needed, separation distances between regulated field
trials and neighboring fields. To do this, APHIS has undertaken a major
review of the scientific literature and standard seed production
practices, working in part with the Association of Official Seed
Certifying Agencies. These enhancements are just a few examples of the
many changes APHIS has implemented to its biotechnology regulatory
program to ensure that it remains robust enough to address the evolving
nature of biotechnology.
Finally, Sec. 10205 established the Pest and Disease Revolving Loan
Fund which would provide loans to local governments to finance
purchases of equipment to monitor, remove, dispose of and replace pest
and disease infested trees in quarantine areas. Although no funding has
been appropriated, the Forest Service is currently in the process of
drafting rules and identifying appropriate mechanisms to implement the
Fund.
Subtitle C--Organic Agriculture
The three provisions in this subtitle are administered by AMS. The
National Organic Certification Cost-Share Program makes funds available
to states, plus the District of Columbia and the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico, interested in providing cost-share assistance to organic
producers and handlers certified under the National Organic Program
(NOP). Sec. 10301 provided $22 million in CCC funds for cost share
activities to remain available until expended and increased the cost
share reimbursement from $500 to $750. Also, USDA was directed to
submit by each March 1 an annual report to Congress describing:
requests by, disbursements to, and expenditures for each state during
the current and previous fiscal years, including the number of
producers and handlers served. The Managers language encouraged the
Secretary to keep accurate and current records of requests by and
disbursements to states under the program, and require accurate and
consistent record-keeping from each state and entity that receives
program payments.
For Fiscal Year 2008, $2.10 million was allocated to the states
while in Fiscal Year 2009 $1.35 million was allocated to the states. On
September 30, 2009, USDA announced the availability of funds for the
cost share program for Fiscal Year 2010. The required report to
Congress was delivered on March 20, 2009.
Sec. 10302 directed USDA to collect data on production, pricing,
and marketing of organic agricultural products. The data would be
included and published in the ongoing baseline of date collection
regarding agricultural production and marketing: $5 million in CCC
funds were provided until expended and $5 million for each FY 2008
through 2012 was authorized. The Managers Statement directed $3.5
million of the $5 million to AMS. This section also required a report
to Congress within 180 days of enactment on the progress made
implementing these activities and identifying additional production and
marketing data needs. The required report was delivered to Congress on
December 29, 2008.
AMS is proceeding with the expansion of the reporting of organic
production and market data. For example, the September 5, 2008 issue of
National Fruit and Vegetable Retail Report featured the debut of a new
section devoted specifically to the coverage of organically grown
produce sold on special at the retail level. In addition, AMS Market
News has just issued its first organic market report on dairy products
and continues to add a wide range of horticultural items to its daily
reports for shipping point for domestic or point of entry for imported
organic products. AMS has also added a ``Portal community'' specific to
organic interests to the Market News Portal.
Sec. 10303 authorized funding for the National Organic Program at
$5 million for Fiscal Year 2008, $6.5 million for 2009, $8 million for
2010, $9.5 million for 2011, and $11 million for 2012. For Fiscal Year
2009, Congress appropriated $3.867 for the NOP and $6.967 million for
Fiscal Year 2010.
Subtitle D--Miscellaneous
The two honey provisions in this subtitle are administered by AMS.
Sec. 10401 made a number of amendments to the Honey Research,
Promotion, and Consumer Information Act. First, the farm bill directed
AMS to consider a national research and promotion program for honey
packers and importers. AMS received a proposal for this packers and
importers program and conducted a referendum on that proposal from
April 2-16, 2008. In the referendum, 78 percent of those voting,
representing 92 percent of the volume of those voting in the
referendum, approved the program. The program become effective on May
22, 2008, 1 day after the final rule was published in the Federal
Register. The first board meeting took place on September 4, 2008. With
the approval of this new program, the collection of assessments under
the Honey Research, Promotion and Consumer Information Order--
authorized under the Honey Research, Promotion and Consumer Information
Act--was suspended. A termination order for that program was published
in the Federal Register on April 17, 2009.
The second major requirement under Sec. 10401 directed USDA to
consider establishing a research and promotion program for domestic
producers. On July 14, 2009, AMS published a proposed rule and
solicited comments through September 14, 2009 for a domestic honey
producer program. AMS is currently reviewing those comments. If it is
determined that a program is warranted, AMS will publish a rule and
hold a referendum. A final rule will be published if the program is
approved in the referendum.
The second farm bill honey provision, Sec. 10402, provided country
of origin labeling requirements for honey that bears any official
certificate of quality, grade mark or statement, continuous inspection
mark or statement, sampling mark or statement or any combination of the
certificates, marks, or statements of USDA. The Interim Final Rule was
published in the July 8, 2009 Federal Register with comments due by
September 8. This rule, which became effective October 6, 2009, would
establish a new regulation addressing country of origin labeling for
packed honey bearing any official USDA mark or statement and would add
a new cause for debarment from inspection and certification service for
honey.
Finally, Sec. 10404 directed the Secretary to make payments to
producers of the 2007 asparagus crop for market losses resulting from
imports during the 2004 through 2007 crop years. USDA was authorized to
expend up to $15 million in direct payments to asparagus producers: up
to $7.5 million for payments for production marketed as fresh and up to
$7.5 million for production marketed as processed. USDA is drafting a
regulation to implement this provision.
Other USDA Activities Related to Specialty Crops and Organic
Agriculture
On September 15, 2009, USDA announced its ``Know Your Farmer, Know
Your Food'' (KYF2) Initiative. The impetus for this
initiative, as the Committee well knows, was the many provisions in the
2008 Farm Bill that focused on local and regional foods. Under the
KYF2 initiative, agencies are challenged to examine current
programs, policies, and regulations and be as innovative as possible to
use these resources to encourage more local and regional food systems--
to the benefit of producers and consumers. A primary focus of this
initiative is to help rural America create wealth and retain that
wealth in their local communities.
USDA is also committed to working with our partners to identify
strategies to link children with foods that are produced in the same
community where they attend school. This strategy benefits children,
who receive a diverse, healthy diet, as well as farmers and local
economies. USDA directly purchased about $650 million in specialty
crops in 2008 for domestic nutrition assistance programs, including
those that serve elderly and American Indian populations. This included
an estimated $124 million in purchases by the National School Lunch
Program and about $215 million for 2008 Farm Bill required purchases,
plus emergency bonus purchases under Section 32. In part to support
small farmer participation in these purchases, USDA, through its Office
of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization (OSDBU), provides
technical assistance and guidance on how to supply commodities to the
domestic feeding programs. OSDBU conducts regular vendor outreach
sessions to identify marketing strategies and information on how small
farmers can market their capabilities to USDA. These sessions and the
OSDBU outreach enable small farmers to establish relationships with
USDA procurement officials, leading to increased procurement
opportunities.
We also support local farm to school efforts by providing technical
assistance resources to our cooperating agencies. In 2000, USDA issued
a step-by-step guide on the Small Farms/School Meals Initiative which
details how to bring small farms and local schools together. In 2005,
USDA issued Eat Smart--Farm Fresh! A Guide to Buying and Serving
Locally-Grown Produce in School Meals, which provides best practices
and strategies for finding locally-grown food and implementing Farm to
School initiatives. We will be updating this publication later this
year, with new success stories, additional resources from outside
organizations, and basic tools for operating a successful program from
start to finish.
The organic industry is the fastest growing segment of U.S.
agriculture. U.S. sales of organic foods have grown from $1 billion in
1990, when the Organic Foods Production Act established the NOP, to a
projected $23.6 billion in 2009. The National Organic Program is
committed to the integrity of the organic seal. In September, Secretary
Vilsack announced that the NOP will become an independent program area
within AMS because of the increased visibility and emphasis on organic
agriculture throughout the farming community, evolving consumer
preferences, and the enhanced need for governmental oversight of this
widely expanded program.
Conclusion
Thank you for the opportunity to describe our successes and
challenges in implementing Title X of the farm bill, as well as some of
the related initiatives being undertaken by USDA. I am happy to answer
any questions that you may have.

The Chairman. Thank you very much. I would like to remind
the Committee Members that you will be recognized in order of
appearance and attendance at the meeting today.
I will kick off the questioning with this one. In May, the
National Organic Standards Board approved a process using
sulfur to adjust soil pH. As you recall, I have raised the
concern of timely rulemaking on this matter with Deputy
Secretary Merrigan and with you when we met in July. In both
conversations I asked that rulemaking be promptly completed so
this use would be available to growers, including growers in my
district, in time for the next season's crop growing and
planting.
Can you tell me where the NOP is in the rulemaking process
with regards to this particular material?
Ms. Pegg. Unfortunately, all of our focus has been on the
access to pasture rulemaking right now, but we have added
additional resources specifically to work on the NOSB
recommendation and this product and to expedite the rulemaking
process for this. I am hoping that we will have it out for
public comment in the first part of next year.
The Chairman. Okay. This is a relatively noncontroversial
and straightforward rulemaking. Adjusting soil pH is
particularly important in western states that have alkaline
soils. And I know the burgeoning California blueberry industry,
in particular, will benefit from this. I think it is very
important that with the NOP's new leadership and the record
funding that we provided, that we get this done. So I will look
forward to hearing about that in the near future.
Ms. Pegg. We will keep you posted. And it is important we
get tools out to growers as quickly as possible.
The Chairman. They would appreciate it, I am sure.
Can you tell me why USDA targeted--well, the President's
budget singled out section 10201, the pest protection fund and
the clean plant network for cuts, even though Congress supplied
mandatory funding in this area. It was an area of discussion
that was in the farm bill, and was felt to be very important
with the Members of this Committee that we put this money in.
Can you tell me why USDA targeted these cuts?
Ms. Smith, are you going to answer that?
Ms. Smith. Yes. We wholeheartedly support the efforts to
address threats and ensure the specialty crop industry has a
reliable source of healthy planting stock. However, at the same
time, the nation's economy is in a very serious situation, and
the need to restrain Federal deficits is a high priority for
this Administration.
One of the challenges we face, of course, is balancing
multiple priorities. I think our perspective is that funding
for pest detection and surveillance that is made available
through our discretionary appropriated funds would be the
appropriate vehicle to address emerging issues.
The Chairman. Well, I would vehemently disagree with that.
I would tell you that, again, the Committee felt very strongly.
These are sections that Mr. Costa and I fought for very
strongly, and others, because of the outbreaks. What we found
in California, in particular, is that oftentimes an ounce of
prevention is worth several pounds of cure. And the cost of
eradication is much more expensive than the preventive
measures.
I would really hope this Administration doesn't repeat the
mistakes of the Bush Administration in not fully funding these
areas and not doing enough. We had a number of hearings in this
Committee in the past on the question of surveillance. In fact,
in the prior Administration, there was a gentleman who was
transferred from his job for doing the right thing and being a
whistleblower. Those are not the kind of things that we would
expect from this Administration. I will just say that.
We don't expect to see them and we are not anticipating
seeing them. But, at the same time, this is an area that I am
very concerned about, and I know the Committee is going to be
asking more questions about in the future.
Can you describe how USDA works with other agencies to
prevent the introduction of invasive species? Go ahead and
answer that, then I will ask the follow-up.
Ms. Smith. One of the fundamental things we do is work with
the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Agency. There was a
decision made after 9/11 to create DHS and to make sure that
all of our protections at the borders were consolidated into
the same organization.
So one of the fundamental things that we do is to cooperate
with CBP and work very closely with them. We provide them with
the kind of information they need to understand what activities
they need to be conducting at the border to reduce the
likelihood of pests and pathogens coming into the country.
There are a number of things we have done in recent years to
really strengthen that relationship.
The Chairman. Administrator Smith, the pest and disease
provisions of the farm bill contain language directing APHIS to
designate those states considered at high risk for pests or
pest disease incursion, and to include the specific criteria
they were to take into consideration when designating these
areas. Designated high-risk states were then to be given a
higher priority in terms of project funding.
How is APHIS designating these high-risk states?
Ms. Smith. I don't have the particulars about how we are
designating them, but we have entered into a very collaborative
process with a variety of stakeholders to form a group that has
looked at all of the projects that are funded.
The Chairman. Terrific. If these states have been
designated, how is the increased risk being factored into the
overall funding considerations?
Ms. Smith. I will have to get the specifics to you of how
we are doing that, sir.
The Chairman. Okay.
[The information referred to is located on p. 23.]
The Chairman. Mrs. Schmidt.
Mrs. Schmidt. Yes, thank you. I have a lengthy statement
with a question at the end.
Ms. Pegg, one of the key programs in the farm bill to
receive mandatory funding and be accessible to the entire
specialty crop industry is the Specialty Crop Block Grant
Program. However, it appears that the Department is
administering this program and setting priorities that were not
the intent of the Congress.
Deputy Secretary Merrigan's press release announcing block
grant recipients stated that the USDA selected projects that
emphasized local agriculture and small producers.
The law does not direct the USDA to select projects.
Instead, it directs the USDA to approve state plans. The
Department's role is to provide accountability and make sure
the plans submitted by the states are appropriate for meeting
the goal of the program. The Department's role is not to select
individual state projects that meet the administrative agenda.
If Congress wanted to give the Department the authority to
select individual projects, we would have written the program
so that the USDA could administer a competitive grant program.
The way Congress wrote the law, it gives the states the
flexibility to choose what projects meet the needs of their
respective specialty crop industry, and the USDA approves the
plan.
Your submitted written testimony states, ``Nearly all the
funds were awarded to benefit small- and medium-size specialty
crop farmers.'' This is why I have such a lengthy question,
because that kind of ignited me.
The statement concerns me, because if you read the law the
farm bill does not place a priority on funding projects for
small- and medium-size producers. The intent of Congress was
that this program should assist producers of all sizes,
regardless of the way they market their products. It appears
that the Department is placing priorities within the program
that cannot be found in the statute.
I would ask the Department to provide the Subcommittee, the
full Subcommittee, a representative sample of correspondence
between the Department and the states in regards to
implementing this program since it was amended by the farm
bill. I would also request a list of all projects submitted by
each state, including those the USDA did not select.
The hearing has an opening of 10 days for all
correspondence, and so I would hope that you could handle that.
Ms. Pegg. Yes.
Mrs. Schmidt. Thank you. You can answer.
Ms. Pegg. Okay. I think you raise a very important question
that has been asked of USDA and our new initiative Know Your
Farmer, Know Your Food. Are we jeopardizing the integrity of
the programs in existing statutes?
No we aren't. Congress set the foundation and gave us the
roadmap with the farm bill or block grants, the Farmers Market
Promotion Program and a number of other programs whose
authority supports the Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food
Initiative
We looked at all grants. We didn't pick and choose grants.
Our only concerns with grants relates to lobbying activities or
an absence of support for specialty crop products or the
industry. There was a recurring theme from every state proposal
and that was the creation of direct marketing opportunities for
farmers of all sizes. In Ohio, it was wine promotion for wine
producers in Ohio. We saw a consistent theme of direct
marketing, and we see that theme as supportive of the Know Your
Farmer, Know Your Food Initiative.
The Specialty Crop Block Grants also focused on research;
new varieties to combat pests and diseases; new varieties to
meet market demands; as well as food safety, which is clearly
an issue for farmers of all sizes.
We are happy to provide you the information you requested,
we want to continue these discussions. We know a lack of
clarity about Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food, supporting
farmers of all sizes and types, is one of the concerns that we
have received.
Mrs. Schmidt. Thank you. Maybe if you would choose your
words more carefully in press releases, it wouldn't make us so
concerned as to what the Department is doing.
I do have a couple of more questions, if I may, sir. I want
to go to Cindy Smith, probably, on this one.
The Pest and Disease Program that was designed to help
different states and regions of the country deal with their own
unique pest and disease pressures, this Committee included the
provision in the farm bill to allow APHIS to work with various
stakeholders to ensure that we have a better system to manage
for pests and diseases in the nursery industry.
What progress has APHIS made in developing that system?
Ms. Smith. We have done a number of things. As you are
aware, this is a very important priority for us, as well as you
and many of our stakeholders. We developed a 5 year strategy
for expending the funds and moving the program forward. As the
basis for that 5 year strategy we focused in six areas:
analysis and survey; inspection at vulnerable points; pest
identification tools; safeguarding, specifically, nursery
production; outreach and education; and enhancing mitigation
capabilities.
We have funded 63 projects in 21 states and other areas,
expending the full $12 million for this past fiscal year. This
includes nearly $1.4 million to develop science-based
management practices and risk mitigation practices to exclude,
contain, and control regulated pests from the nursery
production chain and develop and harmonize audit-based nursery
certification programs.
Mrs. Schmidt. Okay. May I continue? Thank you.
Is the proposed increase in the agricultural quarantine
inspection user fees limited to cover only the AQI costs? And
can you provide the Committee with the breakdown of the real
costs in actual collections?
Ms. Smith. This is the increase in the AQI user fee interim
proposal that is out right now?
Mrs. Schmidt. Yes.
Ms. Smith. We would be happy to provide you the information
that gives you the breakdown of the costs for that program.
Mrs. Schmidt. Thank you.
[The information referred to is located on p. 23.]
Mrs. Schmidt. Although the USDA informed the court that an
environmental impact statement for Roundup Ready alfalfa,
ordered in 2007, would take between 18 and 24 months, it has
been now over 30 months. Has the EIS been completed? If not,
what approvals are necessary for it to be published for public
comment in the Federal Register, and what are the proposed
timing of those approvals and printing processes?
Ms. Smith. We certainly recognize the importance of
completing this environmental impact statement. We also
recognize the importance of making sure that we do it in the
highest quality manner to ensure that it will address the
requirements of the court.
We contracted--for the first time, contracted out an EIS to
try to help support our swift but thorough completion of that
document. We have a document that is near a draft EIS. It is
near completion. It will need to go through our clearance
process and will be published.
After that is published, of course, there will be a comment
period. And then we will need to finalize that EIS as well. And
there will be a final record of decision that will follow.
Mrs. Schmidt. This is my last follow-up.
I understand that. The issue is that we have needs out in
the country, and the EIS is already past due. So is it another
month, another 2 months, another 30 months?
Ms. Smith. We are hopeful we can publish the draft EIS
before the end of this year.
Mrs. Schmidt. Thank you.
The Chairman. I thank the gentlelady. We will offer another
round of questions to the Committee as well.
I would now like to call Mr. Schrader from Oregon.
Mr. Schrader. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a question
regarding the policing of the organic labeling statutes that
are out there. What is going on? How are we assuring consumers
that the crop--the food they are eating is organic, not natural
or almost natural or wanting to be natural?
Ms. Pegg. Congress provided more funding, which has been a
significant improvement to the program, because now we are able
to hire more staff and focus on enforcement and compliance, and
we will be making a number of improvements to the program.
Mr. Schrader. So that change is underway, but no results
yet?
Ms. Pegg. Correct.
Mr. Schrader. With the pest control strategy, I am
interested in knowing how we are going to track success. How
are we defining success? We have this six-point plan. How are
we going to define success? What pests, what diseases are we
targeting, in particular, across the country, and how are we
going to define whether or not we are doing a better job? What
are your benchmarks?
Either one of you. I assume Ms. Smith.
The Chairman. Mr. Schrader, would you repeat the question?
Mr. Schrader. I was just curious. You have the six point
plan for pest and disease and disaster management that you
talked about. I was curious what particular diseases and pests
that the plan is targeting. How do you define success? What
benchmarks do you actually have to tell you that you are doing
what you want to be doing?
Ms. Smith. Under each of those six areas, we have a very
comprehensive set of performance measures. I will provide you
with a copy of that. Targeting a very comprehensive array of
pests requires a variety of different approaches.
[The information referred to is located on p. 24.]
Mr. Schrader. I assume we have provided enough money for
you to be successful, as least as far as you can tell from your
strategy, in each of these different areas.
Ms. Smith. That is correct. With the information that we
have available, we could also provide you the information that
shows you how that money has been distributed in each of those
performance areas.
Mr. Schrader. I would appreciate that.
[The information referred to is located on p. 24.]
Mr. Schrader. One last question, with the advent of
biofuels, there is some controversy about compatibility of
various crops, particularly with other specialty crops. In my
home State of Oregon, there is some interest in using canola as
a rotation crop, but it doesn't necessarily have great
compatibility due to its pest profile and some of our specialty
crops, for instance.
Is there any research at the USDA to help identify these
options for lessening incompatibilities and setbacks? Any
research on rotations that might ensure our specialty crop
industry is not harmed by our biofuels industry?
Ms. Pegg. I will look into it your question.
Research within USDA is handled by the Agricultural
Research Service and the National Institute of Food and
Agriculture. I will consult with my colleagues and get back
with you.
[The information referred to is located on p. 25.]
Mr. Schrader. That would be helpful because it is highly
controversial, and unfortunately it is pitting farmer against
farmer, which you don't want to do, and there is probably some
research out there that could be done that would help us. Thank
you very much. I yield back.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman from Oregon. The
gentleman from California, Mr. Costa, is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Costa. Thank you very much, Chairman Cardoza.
Administrator Pegg, I looked up this morning and I thought I
was back in Sacramento. Welcome to Washington. Those of you who
are part of the audience, Congressman Cardoza and the new
Administrator and I all worked together in a previous life.
I want to talk first about the implementation of the Act
that Chairman Cardoza, referenced earlier in his opening
comments. Obviously, I think we share, because of our
constituencies and our commodities that we grow in the state,
similar experiences. As a result of the Chairman's hard work on
the last farm bill, specialty crops, not just in California but
around the country, have great benefits. Administrator Smith, I
want to thank you for your work on Citrus psyllid. As you know,
it is an enormous issue for California.
On that topic, it is my understanding that APHIS has
committed rapid implementation as part of the citrus health
program. As you may know now, California has become the largest
citrus state in the nation. With the challenges that Florida
has had with psyllid, we are quite anxious to ensure that
California does not experience those same problems.
Could you give us a sense of the timing of this expanding
program?
Ms. Smith. I have to get specifics on that back to you.
Mr. Costa. We would like that, and we would like the
specifics as it relates also to citrus psyllid. It is,
obviously, a concern to the citrus industry.
Let me move on. And please provide that information to the
Subcommittee and to each of our offices.
[The information referred to is located on p. 26.]
Mr. Costa. Prevention of the importation of invasive pests
program has been a priority for all of us in specialty crops,
certainly, Congressman Cardoza and myself. You noted, in your
comments, that it takes a great deal of time and resources to
deal with early detection. We have had a good collaboration
historically between California and some of the other states--
Hawaii, others, and with the USDA on inspection to prevent and
stop the spread of these pests. We know APHIS has devoted a
number of resources to that effort.
Congressman Cardoza and I were visited yesterday by the
California Secretary of Agriculture, A.G. Kawamura. He
indicated to us they are now dealing with five outbreaks of
fruit flies. We know that the agencies work in conjunction with
each other.
This issue gives insight to what we deal with in terms of
invasive species due to the ports. And we have border
inspection issues that we constantly deal with south of us.
Here's my question: Does the Department, DHS or CBP, do
they provide cross-resources for inspection purposes on
jurisdiction, and do you coordinate efforts on these efforts?
Ms. Smith. I appreciate Secretary Kawamura's interest in
this issue. He has been a very important stakeholder as we
ensure that not only are we at APHIS satisfied with the work
done through agriculture quarantine inspection, but, more
importantly, that states such as California are satisfied.
The way that process works is that the agricultural
quarantine inspection fees are collected and provided to APHIS.
Then we work with DHS to divide those fees up so that we
provide some to DHS for their border work and we maintain some.
Mr. Costa. But is there coordination of those resources?
For example, do all the funds have to come out of USDA? We were
talking yesterday afternoon about the potential as to whether
or not Homeland Security, as an example, could be a resource,
since there are common shared purposes on the borders, so that
not all the funding is either at the USDA level or the state
level.
Ms. Smith. DHS actually provides additional funding in
addition to the user fee fundings that we allocate.
Mr. Costa. I would like more information on this. We, under
certain conditions, have airline service, direct service
between Guadalajara and Fresno. We raised the bar, and I
insisted on pest inspection of those planes that arrive daily.
Those are two flights. But, here is my point; the City of
Fresno, that is local government resources, provide the
additional resources for the inspection purposes, wherein other
airports like Los Angeles LAX, Homeland Security, and others
are providing those resources. It seems unfair that we are
having to provide the additional resources for inspection
purposes.
Ms. Smith. One thing we did recently related to that is
that we are piloting a California State Agricultural Liaison at
CBP. This is an example of the kind of things we are trying to
do with CBP to address some of your needs. We are very open to
hearing additional recommendations.
Mr. Costa. I would like to follow through with that, maybe
establish some sort of a task force where we can work together.
Mr. Chairman, I have two more questions, if possible.
The Chairman. Sure.
Mr. Costa. We obviously appreciate your support for
Specialty Crop Block Grants. It has been invaluable to our
efforts to support healthy diets for school lunch programs,
adding more fruits and vegetables, tree nuts, et cetera, to the
lunches.
Could you give me a sense of where the majority of these
grants have been going once they reach the state? Are they
being distributed to farm groups, to associations? Are a large
portion of those funds staying at the state level, or do they
get down to the schools? How is it being used by, the
California Department of Food and Agriculture?
Ms. Pegg. I will need to provide you more details on how
the grants look across the nation. I know for California there
was some focus on food safety and food safety research. They
worked with the Center for Produce Safety on that portion. They
also worked with a number of organizations on farm to school
gardens.
I will provide to you an analysis of what we saw in terms
of trends.
Mr. Costa. I would like to get a snapshot, and I think
other Members of the Subcommittee would as well. We put these
grants together for the purpose of promoting healthy diets and
to work with our schools in doing so. It would be of interest
to all of us to see how these grants are being provided and
distributed.
Ms. Pegg. We can get you that information.
[The information referred to is located on p. 26.]
Mr. Costa. Thank you very much, Administrator Pegg, for
your time. Welcome to Washington. We hope your experience is as
interesting as it has been for all of us.
The Chairman. I am not sure if that is ``well wishes'' or a
curse, Mr. Costa.
Thank you for your questions, sir.
I am going to pass right now and turn it over to Mrs.
Schmidt so that we can have some bipartisan discussions. Mrs.
Schmidt, I will recognize you for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Schmidt. Thank you. Two quick follow-ups to the Know
Your Farmer, Know Your Food theme. Ms. Pegg or Ms. Smith, based
on the USDA press releases, the Know Your Farmer, Know Your
Food theme has been incorporated into several specialty crop
programs such as the DOD Fresh Program, the Farmers Market
Promotion Program, and the Specialty Crop Block Grant Program.
When the USDA approves funding and awards grants, is the
Department evaluating these projects that fit into this new
agenda, or just how are they evaluating them?
Ms. Pegg. We are evaluating it based on the statute and the
regulation. For the Specialty Crop Block Grants, those were all
state proposals. We evaluated them on the statute and whether
there was a prohibited activity.
For the Farmers Market Promotion program an independent
committee looked at all 470 proposals, and reviewed those and
then gave recommendations to the Department.
For DOD Fresh, we look to our authorities to allow states
to purchase locally.
So each aspect of Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food is
really administered according to the statute.
Mrs. Schmidt. My concern is the authority and the way Know
Your Farmer, Know Your Food is being used to promote the block
grant programs. I hope that the information received back
clarifies it for me. I think that Know Your Farmer, Know Your
Food is a great idea, but I am very concerned about the
implementation of that idea into a law that doesn't really give
you the authority to do so. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you. I appreciate it.
This question is for Administrator Pegg and it regards the
Specialty Crop Block Grant Program. In creating the State Block
Grant Program, Congress decided to distribute Specialty Crop
Block Grants by state agricultural officials. Do you think the
states are doing a good job in doing their secondary outreach,
and what are some effective examples of this outreach?
It appears that while certain projects and programs are
directly related to state-specific needs, there are a number of
issues--food safety, traceability and nutrition, pest and
disease--that are not congruent with state boundaries. How are
you managing to get that feedback back? Do you think more
states should consider multi-state partnerships in the
utilization of their block grant funding, and what has been
your experience, thus far, with multi-state grants? Would there
be a case for a national block grant program?
Ms. Pegg. We are actually holding a call right now with all
the states' departments to go over the expectations for 2010,
the funding, when funds will be available, and filling out
their grant applications. They are required to reach out and
provide us with how they are reaching out to different groups
and different entities within their states.
Looking at how the grants were distributed in the issue
areas that a lot of the states proposed in the 2009 funding, I
think states should look at 2010 and determine where they can
partner together.
Food safety is a big issue for a lot of growers, large and
small, throughout the nation. And we saw a lot of states
addressing this issue.
It would be very good if the states were to partner
together and see how they can leverage that research and
leverage those dollars.
The Chairman. In the past year, there was somewhat of, it
seemed, a compressed timeline for application requests;
requests for proposals under the block grant program. That is
probably to be expected, considering the late passage of the
farm bill last year and some of those issues around it and the
change of Administrations.
Can we anticipate that that request for proposal will be
earlier and that there will be more time for states to comply
and to make their proposals?
Ms. Pegg. This was one of the issues that we faced with the
block grants. States had to submit proposals very quickly. We
will be announcing the availability of 2010 funds next month,
with grants due in June of 2010. There will be plenty of time
for states to respond.
They will also have time to reach out within the states,
make sure they are reaching their communities, and develop
grants.
The Chairman. Very good. This Committee has been very
concerned in the past with honeybees, their declining
populations, the and mysterious diseases that have affected
them. The 2008 Farm Bill also established a framework for
holding referenda on two proposed new honey research and
promotion boards to replace the previous honey board. One of
these new boards was designed to primarily represent the
interests of packers and importers and other interests in U.S.
products.
Congress hoped, in fairness to all segments of the
industry, that the process for both of these new boards would
move forward on the same expedited basis and on roughly the
same timetable. As it turned out, the referenda on the packer
and importer board took place early in 2008, and the new board
has been up and running for more than a year. In contrast,
after more than 2\1/2\ years of receipt of the formal documents
calling for the creation of the producer board, there has been
no referenda yet held on the producer board.
Obviously, this isn't all the fault of an Administration
that has only been in office for a few months. But,
Administrator Pegg, after this period of time calling for the
creation of a new honey producer board and the fact that there
has been no referenda yet held on the board, given the history,
I would be interested in hearing your explanation why you
believe it has taken so long. At the same time, I'd strongly
urge you to move forward as quickly as you can on the new honey
producer board referenda.
Ms. Pegg. We are currently reviewing all the comments
regarding establishing a research and promotion board for
domestic producers and moving forward with that process. I will
note your request that we move quickly on that and work toward
doing that.
The Chairman. I appreciate that very much. Do any Members
of the Committee have any further questions? Would the
witnesses like to make any final statements?
Ms. Pegg. We thank you for the opportunity to update you.
We look forward to working with all of you, and we look forward
to receiving your questions, and working together to move the
specialty crop sector forward. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you. I appreciate your being here with
us today. I look forward to further dialogue and more broad-
based hearings on Title X of the farm bill in section 10. I
would like to remind the Members that they do have 10 days with
which to expand their comments.
Under the rules of the Committee, the record of today's
hearing will remain open for 10 calendar days to receive
additional material from our witnesses and supplementary
responses from the Members.
This hearing of the Subcommittee on Horticulture and
Organic Agriculture is hereby adjourned. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 10:55 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
Supplemetary Material Submitted by USDA
During the October 28, 2009 hearing entitled, Hearing To Review
Implementation of the Horticulture and Organic Agriculture Title of the
Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, requests for information
were made to USDA. The following are their information submissions for
the record.
Insert 1
The Chairman. Terrific. If these states have been designated,
how is the increased risk being factored into the overall
funding considerations?
Ms. Smith. I will have to get the specifics to you of how we
are doing that, sir.

As required by the farm bill, APHIS provided and will continue to
provide Section 10201 funding to states that are considered high risk
for one or more plant pests or diseases, taking into consideration the
items outlined in the farm bill such as the number of international
ports in a state. APHIS developed a comparative risk assessment (CRA)
to determine which states are considered high risk; however, it is
important to note that the considerations outlined in the farm bill do
not account for the full pest risk picture. Because of this, APHIS also
evaluated a wider list of considerations such as the volume of goods
moved beyond a port-of-entry and pest and product pathways.
As we look at future Section 10201 funding distribution, APHIS is
discussing with states the possibility of further analysis on the
multiple risk factors related to plant pests and diseases, such as
state risk and pest pathways. Risk is constantly changing and our goal
is to work closely with the states to further our understanding of this
risk.
Insert 2
Mrs. Schmidt. . . . Is the proposed increase in the
agricultural quarantine inspection user fees limited to cover
only the AQI costs? And can you provide the Committee with the
breakdown of the real costs in actual collections?
Ms. Smith. This is the increase in the AQI user fee interim
proposal that is out right now?
Mrs. Schmidt. Yes.
Ms. Smith. We would be happy to provide you the information
that gives you the breakdown of the costs for that program.

Yes, the AQI user fee increase that APHIS proposed on September 28,
2009, and subsequently withdrew on October 30, 2009, was to fund only
agricultural quarantine and inspection (AQI) activities. Section
2509(a) of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990
(21 U.S.C. 136a) authorizes APHIS to collect user fees for AQI
activities. We maintain all AQI fees we collect in distinct accounts,
carefully monitor the balances in these accounts, and only use these
funds to pay for our actual costs for providing these distinct
services. Any surplus in the AQI account carries forward from year to
year and is available until expended to fund AQI activities.
While APHIS withdrew the interim rule for the proposed AQI user fee
increase on October 30, 2009, based on stakeholder feedback, the below
reflects the spending plan if that increase had been finalized.
APHIS FY 2010 AQI User Fee Spending Plan
APHIS' initial spending plan for FY 2010, which assumed that the
emergency fee increase would go into effect on October 1, 2009, totaled
$207.033 million. Descriptions of AQI program activities and funding
levels under the initial plan are below.

APHIS AQI Policy and Management: $12.899 million

APHIS units develop policy and protocols for inspection processes
at ports of entry; coordinate efforts with Customs and Border
Protection (CBP); analyze import and pest interception data from ports
of entry; and maintain and update inspection and treatment manuals.

APHIS Port Operations and Oversight: $115.107 million

This category includes APHIS' plant inspection stations, the
Veterinary Regulatory Support staff, staff involved in import
facilitation (such as fumigation of cargo, treatment validation), and
inspection operations in the Dominican Republic and Mexico as well as
the Professional Development Center (where CBP agricultural specialists
and canine teams are trained).

Science and Technical Support: $14.617 million

This category includes APHIS' National Identification Services
staff that provides pest identification policy and technical guidance
and national taxonomic services for the certain pests intercepted at
ports of entry. APHIS also develops detection tools and diagnostic
methods used at ports of entry and treatment protocols applied to
imported agricultural products.

Import Analysis and Risk Management: $36.648 million

This category includes risk analysis efforts that support import
trade negotiations, the development of appropriate risk management
measures, and other analyses that support regulatory decision making
processes for agricultural imports to ensure that safe agricultural
trade can occur.

Regulatory Enforcement and Anti-Smuggling Programs: $27.762 million

The Smuggling Interdiction and Trade Compliance (SITC) program
analyzes potential smuggling pathways, conducts product traces to
distribution points in commerce and importers, and coordinates with
investigative organizations to increase regulatory compliance. APHIS'
Investigative and Enforcement Services (IES) unit investigates
potential violations of APHIS' regulations.

Total Collections

With the increased user fee rule, APHIS expected AQI user fee
collections to total $578 million. Of that amount, APHIS planned to
transfer $346.9 million to CBP. APHIS' allocation of new funding would
have been $206.5 million. The remaining $24 million would have been
used to rebuild the AQI reserve, which was used to keep the program
functioning during FY 2009, when collections were $61 million less than
anticipated.
Insert 3
Mr. Schrader. I was just curious. You have the six point plan
for pest and disease and disaster management that you talked
about. I was curious what particular diseases and pests that
the plan is targeting. How do you define success? What
benchmarks do you actually have to tell you that you are doing
what you want to be doing?
Ms. Smith. Under each of those six areas, we have a very
comprehensive set of performance measures. I will provide you
with a copy of that. Targeting a very comprehensive array of
pests requires a variety of different approaches.

The Section 10201 Implementation Plan describes how success will be
measured, for each of the strategic goals. The Plan is available on our
website at: http://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/plant_pest_info/
pest_detection/farm_bill.shtml.
While the 10201 Implementation Plan describes how success will be
measured for each of the six strategies (Enhance Analysis and Survey,
Target Domestic Inspection Activities, Enhance Pest Identification and
Technology, Safeguard Nursery Production, Conduct Education and
Outreach, Enhance Mitigation Efforts), the overarching goal is to
protect the health and value of U.S. agriculture and natural resources.
This will be measured by the value of damages prevented through early
detection efforts. Anytime we enter into a cooperative agreement with a
state or other stakeholder, including agreements for Section 10201
funding, the agreement outlines performance measures that cooperators
must meet, as well as requirements for reporting their activities to
APHIS.
Insert 4
Mr. Schrader. I assume we have provided enough money for you
to be successful, as least as far as you can tell from your
strategy, in each of these different areas.
Ms. Smith. That is correct. With the information that we have
available, we could also provide you the information that shows
you how that money has been distributed in each of those
performance areas.

Section 10201 Financial Obligations for FY 2009

(1) Enhanced analysis and surveys ($3,387,573):
High risk pathway analysis $370,460
Plum Pox survey $582,658
Plant Health Information System (PHIS)--survey component $635,075
Enhance state surveys for high risk pests $1,640,611
Honeybee pest survey $158,769
(2) Target domestic inspection activities ($1,058,458):
Expand canine teams into new locations in California $1,058,458
(3) Pest identification & technology enhancement ($2,072,747):
PHIS--trap/lure procurement system $241,329
Bulk procure traps and lures $1,129,878
Diagnostic support for high threat arthropods $79,384
Develop and deliver molecular diagnostics $595,578
Cryopreservation for fruit fly production facility $26,579
(4) Safeguarding nursery production ($1,363,334):
Establish a National Ornamentals Research Site at $1,053,234
Dominican University in California (NORSDUC)
Support state oversight of the research site $52,923
Model regulation for a state nursery certification $69,858
program
National nursery virus certification program pilot $91,690
Audit-based state nursery certification systems-- $25,770
training
Audit-based state nursery certification systems-- $69,858
outreach
(5) Outreach and education ($1,142,641):
Forest pest outreach $1,014,964
Laurel Wilt outreach $31,754
Crop Biosecurity Curriculum/extension $95,923
(6) Enhance mitigation capabilities ($2,975,246):
Asian Citrus Psyllid mitigation in northern Mexico $899,459
Plum Pox Virus mitigation in NY and MI $745,799
Fruit fly mitigation in CA $659,420
Mitigation of golden nematode in targeted areas of NY $256,999
Laurel Wilt research focused on mitigation to protect $169,353
avocados
Discovery of biological control agents to control Asian $52,923
Citrus Psyllid
Cactus Moth mitigation in Louisiana $191,293
Insert 5
Mr. Schrader. One last question, with the advent of biofuels,
there is some controversy about compatibility of various crops,
particularly with other specialty crops. In my home State of
Oregon, there is some interest in using canola as a rotation
crop, but it doesn't necessarily have great compatibility due
to its pest profile and some of our specialty crops, for
instance.
Is there any research at the USDA to help identify these
options for lessening incompatibilities and setbacks? Any
research on rotations that might ensure our specialty crop
industry is not harmed by our biofuels industry?
Ms. Pegg. I will look into it your question.

This is fundamentally an issue of genetic contamination. The
growers of vegetable seeds such as brassicas cannot tolerate cross
contamination from canola oil seed crops (whether edible oil or oil for
biofuels). There are regulations established for distances seed crops
must be isolated from other similar kind of seed crops as well as from
other kind usage crops (like canola). Brassica vegetable seed crops are
grown in the Willamette Valley, Oregon (high value crops but limited
acreages) and there has been historic conflict between these growers
and other farmers who wish to grow canola oil seed crops. State
regulatory agencies such as the Oregon Department of Agriculture may
restrict canola for oil to be grown in the Willamette Valley to protect
the vegetable seed industry.
Apart from genetic contamination of specialty crop seed production,
bioenergy crops can be beneficial to specialty crop production. USDA's
Agricultural Research Service's (ARS) research in Orono, ME has shown
that potato crops (a specialty crop) grown in rotation with canola oil
seed crops increased potato yields and reduced the risk of economic
loss compared to potato grown in continuous rotation or potato rotated
with barley. ARS research in Prosser, WA has shown that the oil seed
residues left after oil extraction when applied to potato fields
reduced disease and weed incidence so the amounts of pesticides that
needed to be applied could be reduced. Also, as shown in Maine, canola
rotated with potato was beneficial to potato production.
Insert 6
Mr. Costa. . . . With the challenges that Florida has had
with psyllid, we are quite anxious to ensure that California
does not experience those same problems.
Could you give us a sense of the timing of this expanding
program?
Ms. Smith. I have to get specifics on that back to you.
Mr. Costa. We would like that, and we would like the
specifics as it relates also to citrus psyllid. It is,
obviously, a concern to the citrus industry.

We are working as quickly as possible to implement activities to
protect California and other citrus-producing states from citrus pests
and diseases, using the increased funding that APHIS received in FY
2010 appropriations. APHIS received a total of $44.7 million for our
Citrus Health Response Program (CHRP) in FY 2010. We are currently
working with state cooperators and stakeholders and will be finalizing
operational plans and the corresponding budgets for California,
Arizona, Texas, Louisiana, and Florida over the next several weeks.
While nationally coordinated, the operational plans are designed to
address local needs in each region and are based on the overarching
goals of the CHRP, which encompasses the following activities, with
estimated FY 2010 funding distribution indicated:

Asian citrus psyllid (ACP) and Huanglongbing (HLB-citrus
greening) survey activities ($20.00 million).

ACP suppression ($7.0 million).

Regulatory framework/enforcement ($11.5 million).

Communication and outreach ($0.90 million).

Management and program support/national and
international coordination with Mexico and other North and
Central American countries ($3.80 million).

Method development/research ($1.5 million).
Insert 7
Mr. Costa. I would like to get a snapshot, and I think other
Members of the Subcommittee would as well. We put these grants
together for the purpose of promoting healthy diets and to work
with our schools in doing so. It would be of interest to all of
us to see how these grants are being provided and distributed.
Ms. Pegg. We can get you that information.

Specialty Crop Block Grant Program-Farm Bill (SCBGP-FB)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year Grantees Projects Awarded
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2008 50 states, the District, and five 262
U.S. Territories
2009 50 states, the District, and four 745
U.S. Territories (American Samoa
chose not to apply)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2008 Project Delivery Types 2009 Project Delivery Types

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Programs The proposal illustrated that the
state department of agriculture
planned to administer the project
and/or a competitive grant program
was not conducted.
Competitive Grants The proposal demonstrated that a fair
and open competition was conducted
and the project partner(s) are
clearly involved.
Other The proposal illustrated that project
partners met with the grantee to
determine project priorities, but an
open competitive grant program was
not conducted.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
From 2008 to 2009 the SCBGP-FB
percentage
of . . . In 2009, 79% of the funds ------------------------------------------------------------------------

SCBGP-FB 2008 and 2009 Project Types
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2008 Project Types 2009
Project Types
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

------------------------------------------------------------------------
From 2008 to 2009 the SCBGP-FB
percentage
of . . . ------------------------------------------------------------------------

SCBGP-FB 2008 and 2009 Project Sub-Types
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project Sub-Type 2008 2008% 2009 2009% Total 2008-2009
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beginning and Socially Disadvantaged Farmers 7 2.67% 55 7.38% 62 4.71%
Child and Adult Nutrition 5 1.91% 16 2.15% 21 0.24%
Cooperative Development 2 0.76% 27 3.62% 29 2.86%
E-Commerce 0 0.00% 17 2.28% 17 2.28%
Ethnic Crop Marketing and Production 2 0.76% 10 1.34% 12 0.58%
Export Market Development 2 0.76% 23 3.09% 25 2.32%
Farm to School 8 3.05% 36 4.83% 44 1.78%
Farmers' Markets 7 2.67% 13 1.74% 20 ^0.93%
GAP/GHP 1 0.38% 6 0.81% 7 0.42%
Genetic Improvement 1 0.38% 6 0.81% 7 0.42%
Growing Season Extension 8 3.05% 28 3.76% 36 0.70%
Human Health 3 1.15% 39 5.23% 42 4.09%
Improved Quality 14 5.34% 42 5.64% 56 0.29%
Increased Yield 0 0.00% 8 1.07% 8 1.07%
New and Improved Specialty Crop Varieties/Uses 0 0.00% 4 0.54% 4 0.54%
Water Studies/Conservation 3 1.15% 26 3.49% 29 2.34%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Project Sub-Type Descriptions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beginning and Socially Disadvantaged Farmers
Child and Adult Nutrition
Cooperative Development E-Commerce Ethnic Crop Marketing and Production Export Market Development GAP/GHP
Farm to School
Farmers' Markets
Genetic Improvement
Growing Season Extension Human Health Improved Quality
Increased Yield New and Improved Specialty Crop Varieties/Uses
Water Studies/Conservation --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------