U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

65–893 PDF 2011

HEARING TO REVIEW MARKET PROMOTION 

PROGRAMS AND THEIR EFFECTIVENESS ON 

EXPANDING EXPORTS OF U.S. AGRICULTURAL 

PRODUCTS

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RURAL DEVELOPMENT, 

RESEARCH, BIOTECHNOLOGY, AND 

FOREIGN AGRICULTURE

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

APRIL 7, 2011

Serial No. 112–9

(

Printed for the use of the Committee on Agriculture 

agriculture.house.gov 

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma, Chairman 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia, 

Vice Chairman 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas 

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania 

THOMAS J. ROONEY, Florida 

MARLIN A. STUTZMAN, Indiana 

BOB GIBBS, Ohio 

AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia 

STEPHEN LEE FINCHER, Tennessee 

SCOTT R. TIPTON, Colorado 

STEVE SOUTHERLAND II, Florida 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas 

MARTHA ROBY, Alabama 

TIM HUELSKAMP, Kansas 

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee 

RENEE L. ELLMERS, North Carolina 

CHRISTOPHER P. GIBSON, New York 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri 

ROBERT T. SCHILLING, Illinois 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

COLLIN C. PETERSON, Minnesota, Ranking 

Minority Member 

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania 

MIKE MCINTYRE, North Carolina 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

JOE BACA, California 

DENNIS A. CARDOZA, California 

DAVID SCOTT, Georgia 

HENRY CUELLAR, Texas 

JIM COSTA, California 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

KURT SCHRADER, Oregon 

LARRY KISSELL, North Carolina 

WILLIAM L. OWENS, New York 

CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine 

JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio 

GREGORIO KILILI CAMACHO SABLAN, 

Northern Mariana Islands 

TERRI A. SEWELL, Alabama 

JAMES P. MCGOVERN, Massachusetts 

PROFESSIONAL STAFF

NICOLE SCOTT, Staff Director 

KEVIN J. KRAMP, Chief Counsel 

TAMARA HINTON, Communications Director 

ROBERT L. LAREW, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RURAL DEVELOPMENT, RESEARCH, BIOTECHNOLOGY, AND

FOREIGN AGRICULTURE

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois, Chairman 

GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania 

MARLIN A. STUTZMAN, Indiana 

AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri 

ROBERT T. SCHILLING, Illinois 

JIM COSTA, California, Ranking Minority 

Member 

HENRY CUELLAR, Texas 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

TERRI A. SEWELL, Alabama 

LARRY KISSELL, North Carolina 

MIKE DUNLAP, Subcommittee Staff Director

(II) 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Costa, Hon. Jim, a Representative in Congress from California, opening statement ...................................................................................................................... 2

Johnson, Hon. Timothy V., a Representative in Congress from Illinois, opening statement ........................................................................................................ 1

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 1

WITNESSES

Brewer, John, Administrator, Foreign Agricultural Service, U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. ........................................................................ 3

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 5

Submitted questions ......................................................................................... 98

Wootton, Michael J., Senior Vice President Corporate Relations, Sunkist 

Growers; Chairman, Coalition to Promote U.S. Agricultural Exports, Sherman Oaks, CA; on behalf of National Council of Farmer Cooperatives .......... 38

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 39

Censky, Stephen L., Chief Executive Officer, American Soybean Association, 

St. Louis, MO ....................................................................................................... 43

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 44

Lively, R. Thad, Senior Vice President, Trade Access, U.S. Meat Export 

Federation, Denver, CO ....................................................................................... 48

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 49

Hamilton, Tim, Executive Director, Food Export Association of the Midwest 

USA and Food Export USA—Northeast, Chicago, IL ....................................... 51

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 53

Nikolich, George, Vice President, Technical Operations, Gerawan Farming, 

Inc.; Board Member, California Grape & Tree Fruit League, Reedley, CA .... 56

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 57

SUBMITTED MATERIAL

Bedwell, Berry, President, California Grape and Tree Fruit League, submitted 

letter ...................................................................................................................... 69

Brauner, Susan, Director of Public Affairs, Blue Diamond Growers; Executive 

Member, Coalition to Promote U.S. Agricultural Exports; Member, National 

Council of Farmer Cooperatives, submitted statement .................................... 70

Cotton, Guy P., Grower Direct Marketing, submitted letter ............................... 71

Darneille, Wallace L., President and Chief Executive Officer, Plains Cotton 

Cooperative Association, submitted statement .................................................. 72

Dorr, Thomas C., President and Chief Executive Officer, U.S. Grains Council, 

submitted statement and charts ......................................................................... 73

Engelhard, Dennis, President, United States Dry Bean Council, submitted 

letter ...................................................................................................................... 79

Keck, Ken O., Executive Director, Florida Department of Citrus, submitted 

statement and charts ........................................................................................... 80

Wilson, Chiles, President, Rivermaid Trading Company, submitted letter ........ 87

American Seed Trade Association, submitted statement ..................................... 87

U.S. Apple Association, submitted statement ....................................................... 91

U.S. Wheat Associates; National Association of Wheat Growers, submitted 

statement and fact sheet ..................................................................................... 93

USA Rice Federation, submitted statement .......................................................... 96

(1)

HEARING TO REVIEW MARKET PROMOTION 

PROGRAMS AND THEIR EFFECTIVENESS ON 

EXPANDING EXPORTS OF U.S. AGRICULTURAL 

PRODUCTS 

THURSDAY, APRIL 7, 2011

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON RURAL DEVELOPMENT, RESEARCH, BIOTECHNOLOGY, AND FOREIGN AGRICULTURE, COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, Washington, D.C. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:30 a.m., in Room 

1300 of the Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Timothy V. 

Johnson [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Johnson, Thompson, 

Stutzman, Scott, Hartzler, Hultgren, Schilling, Costa, Cuellar, 

Welch, Sewell, and Kissell. 

Staff present: Mike Dunlap, Tamara Hinton, John Konya, John 

Porter, Debbie Smith, Andy Baker, Scott Kuschmider, and Jamie 

Mitchell. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM ILLINOIS 

The CHAIRMAN. I will now call this hearing of the Subcommittee 

on Rural Development, Research, Biotechnology, and Foreign Agriculture to review market promotion programs and their effectiveness on expanding the exports of U.S. agricultural products, to 

order. 

I am Congressman Johnson, and this is our Ranking Member, 

Mr. Costa, of California. I have already asked that my opening 

statement be inserted in the record. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Johnson appears at the conclusion of the hearing:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM ILLINOIS

Good morning. I would like to start by thanking Administrator Brewer for being 

here today, and each of our witnesses on our second panel for making time in their 

schedules and traveling across the country to be here this morning. 

The prosperity of rural America is closely tied to the prosperity of our farmers 

and ranchers. At a time when the country is struggling to recover from a dramatic 

economic downturn, U.S. agricultural exports have been expanded through the hard 

work of our producers, exporters, and those who work to create new opportunities 

in foreign markets. 

As the global population continues to expand, greater demand for food will follow. 

I know that our farmers and ranchers are up to the task and will continue to be 

2

the most efficient producers of food, fiber, and fuel in the world. However the global 

marketplace is not always an easy environment to navigate and many barriers to 

trade exist throughout our key markets. 

The Administration recently released three updated reports detailing specific barriers our exporters must overcome when seeking new market opportunities. These 

reports, over 600 pages in total, illustrate just how challenging it can be for our producers to begin or continue exporting. 

Today we will be discussing five important market promotion programs designed 

to tackle non-tariff trade barriers. The Market Access Program, Foreign Market Development Program, Emerging Markets Program, Quality Samples Program, and 

the Technical Assistance for Specialty Crops program are each designed to assist 

various commodities and sectors. 

From our first panel we hope to gain greater clarity with regard to the changes 

that USDA has proposed for the Market Access and Foreign Market Development 

programs. We look forward to working with the administration to address ways the 

programs can be strengthened. We also look forward to receiving an update on how 

the Foreign Agricultural Service is fulfilling its core mission of expanding exports 

of U.S. agricultural goods. 

Our second panel is comprised of a diverse group of witnesses representing a cross 

section of agricultural exporters. We look forward to their insights on these programs, the challenges they are facing, and how they have leveraged these programs 

to increase exports. 

I look forward to the testimony that will be given today, and thank our witnesses 

again for being here this morning.

The CHAIRMAN. And now I call on our distinguished Ranking 

Member, the gentleman from California and former Chairman of 

the appropriate Subcommittee here in the Agriculture Committee, 

Mr. Costa. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JIM COSTA, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM CALIFORNIA 

Mr. COSTA. Thank you very much, Chairman Johnson, for calling 

this important Subcommittee hearing to review the market promotion programs, their effectiveness on expanding exports of U.S. 

agricultural products. The cornucopia of agricultural products that 

we grow in this nation clearly are the best in terms of quality and 

in terms of yield, and our ability to feed our nation and to export 

our products are an important part of maintaining a strong economic agricultural industry in our country. 

And I think we all believe in the importance of free markets. The 

problem that we have, of course, is that we compete in foreign markets in which there are tariffs and there are non-tariff barriers. So, 

this Subcommittee’s hearing this morning is an important opportunity to point out many of those barriers that limit our farmers 

or ranchers, dairymen and dairywomen, the people who do this 

with wonderful, effective ability and with cutting-edge technologies 

to not only make a profit at home but to be able to also make a 

profit in selling their products abroad. 

We have a couple of witnesses who will testify in the second 

panel today from California, and obviously I am proud of those 

folks. We will introduce them at the appropriate time. I just want 

to underline, Mr. Chairman, your important role that you will play 

and that we all must in the Subcommittee, in ensuring that we 

connect American agriculture producers to the value-added agricultural businesses of all sizes and varieties to the world markets, and 

under the Federal Assistance Service, Foreign Assistance Service 

we know that there are important efforts that take place. 

3

Mr. Brewer, I will look forward to hearing your comments. These 

efforts, these programs help keep markets open for the long term 

while we work to establish new markets. As an example, we have 

in Northern California a very thriving rice industry, but they have 

worked for 20 years to develop markets in Japan. That is not easy 

because that is, in the Japanese instance, a staple crop, and they 

don’t want to be dependent on foreign sources of rice, but yet we 

have been able to make inroads there. 

These programs help promote free and fair global trading in a 

system today that is dominated by the World Trade Organization, 

and oftentimes we have issues with the World Trade Organization. 

They help resolve non-tariff trade barriers, particularly as it relates to unique sanitary and phytosanitary challenges that we have 

in many of our specialty crops across the country. Oftentimes I believe that some countries raise as an issue of phytosanitary standards when it is really not an issue, but they use it to leverage on 

trade negotiations. I think our food that is grown here is the gold 

standard, frankly, in safety standards, on health and safety, but 

nonetheless, these issues get raised. 

So I look forward to hearing the testimony today from the panel 

witnesses. I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues 

on this Subcommittee. It is an important Subcommittee, and Mr. 

Chairman, I know you are going to continue the guidance and leadership as we work on these issues together. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Ranking Member Costa. As I look to 

see my colleagues on both sides of the aisle here really have four 

individuals whose districts are dramatically impacted by the subject matter of this hearing, so I appreciate all four of you being 

here and would request that any of you who have opening statements just submit them to the record so we can go ahead and proceed with the witnesses and assure there is enough time for your 

questions. 

I think just as an admonition, the indication is that we will probably start our votes, which will be a fairly short, as I understand 

it, a fairly short sequence, about 10:30, so hopefully we can act appropriately here. 

I would like to welcome our first panel, our first witness, Mr. 

John Brewer, the Administrator of the Foreign Agricultural Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Mr. Brewer, if you would like 

to begin, we welcome you, and we would be pleased to hear you. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN BREWER, ADMINISTRATOR, FOREIGN 

AGRICULTURAL SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF

AGRICULTURE, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. BREWER. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to 

appear before you to discuss the trade programs administered by 

the U.S. Department of Agriculture. 

The Foreign Agricultural Service leads USDA efforts to expand 

foreign market access for U.S. products, build new markets, improve the competitive position of U.S. agriculture, and address food 

security and capacity building in foreign countries. 

4

FAS relies on its network of agricultural economists, market development experts, negotiators, and trade specialists, both in 

Washington and in its approximately 100 international offices that 

cover 156 countries. FAS attache ́s provide expertise to identify and 

seize opportunities and avert problems before they become trade 

barriers that impeded U.S. exports. 

FAS is proud of its contribution to growing U.S. agricultural exports. U.S. farm exports are expected to reach a record $135.5 billion in Fiscal Year 2011, eclipsing the 2008 record by more than 

$20 billion. Importantly, every $1 billion in agricultural exports 

generates an additional $1.3 billion in economic activity and supports 8,400 American jobs. 

Agriculture plays an important role in supporting President 

Obama’s National Export Initiative goal of doubling all U.S. exports within 5 years. As the President recently said, we know what 

it will take for America to win the future. We need to out-innovate, 

we need to out-educate, we need to out-build our competitors. We 

need an economy that is based not on what we consume and borrow from other nations, but what we make and what we sell 

around the world. USDA stands ready to meet this challenge. 

Our two largest FAS-administered economic export development 

programs are the Market Access Program, or MAP, and the Foreign Market Development Cooperator Program, or FMD. MAP 

forms partnerships with nonprofit agricultural trade organizations, 

agricultural cooperatives, nonprofit state regional trade groups, 

and small and medium-sized entities to share the costs of overseas 

marketing and promotional activities. 

The farm bill makes available $200 million for MAP this year. 

That amount is paired with industry contributions. In addition to 

generic promotions, MAP has a brand promotion component that 

funds over 600 small companies and agricultural cooperatives. 

For Foreign Market Development Cooperator Program, or FMD 

is a cost-share program that aids in the creation, expansion, and 

maintenance of long-term export markets for agricultural products. 

The farm bill makes available $34.5 million for FMD this year. The 

program fosters a partnership between USDA and U.S. producers 

and processors who are represented by nonprofit commodity or 

trade associations called cooperators. 

USDA and cooperators pool resources to conduct overseas market 

development to address long-term foreign import constraints and 

export growth opportunities. The economic impact of MAP and 

FMD is impressive. An FAS-commissioned cost-benefit analysis 

concluded that U.S. agricultural experts increased by $35 for every 

dollar invested by government and industry on market development. 

A small but important program we administer called the Quality 

Samples Program assist U.S. agricultural in providing samples to 

potential importers overseas. QSP has introduced foreign buyers to 

a wide variety of U.S. commodities, including wheat, citrus, and 

cranberries. In Fiscal Year 2010, $1.89 million of funding was allocated under QSP. The FAS-administrated Emerging Markets Program improves market access and develops or promotes U.S. agricultural exports to low and middle income emerging markets. In 

5

Fiscal Year 2010, the EMP supported 83 projects with funding totaling $8.3 million. 

Last year the Technical Assistance for Specialty Crops or TASC 

Program assisted specialty crop producers in resolving numerous 

phytosanitary and related technical barriers. Under TASC U.S. exporters have regained market access for millions of dollars of products from almonds to spinach. 

I look forward to working with Congress. Agricultural trade remains a bright spot in the U.S. economy, consistently producing a 

trade surplus. 

This concludes my statement. I look forward to answering any 

questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Brewer follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN BREWER, ADMINISTRATOR, FOREIGN AGRICULTURAL

SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to appear before you 

today. I welcome the opportunity to discuss the trade programs administered by the 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 

Introduction 

The Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) is the lead agency of the U.S. Department 

of Agriculture (USDA) responsible for addressing the challenges and opportunities 

of the dynamic global marketplace by expanding foreign market access for U.S. 

products, building new markets, improving the competitive position of U.S. agriculture, and addressing food security and capacity building in foreign countries. FAS 

has the primary responsibility within USDA for international market development 

and export financing, trade agreements and negotiations, and the analysis and dissemination of vital market intelligence and data to agricultural producers and exporters. FAS administers food aid programs and mobilizes USDA’s unique resources 

and expertise in agricultural development activities. 

FAS relies on its global network of agricultural economists, market development 

experts, negotiators and trade specialists both in Washington, DC, and its approximately 100 international offices that cover 156 countries. FAS attache ́s and counselors serving at U.S. Embassies are our eyes and ears around the world, providing 

the agricultural expertise to identify and seize opportunities, by capturing real-time 

information on emerging trade and market development issues, and averting problems before they become trade barriers that impede U.S. exports. 

Importance of Maintaining and Expanding Agricultural Trade 

At FAS, we are proud of our contributions to growing U.S. agricultural exports. 

Last month Secretary Vilsack announced that U.S. farm exports are expected to 

reach a record $135.5 billion in Fiscal Year (FY) 2011, eclipsing the 2008 record by 

more than $20 billion. Compared to FY 2010, export value is expected to grow by 

25 percent and volume by ten percent. The agricultural trade surplus is projected 

to reach a record $47.5 billion. Agriculture is a bright spot in the U.S. trade portfolio where we have been consistently running a trade surplus. 

These numbers are good news, not just for farmers and ranchers and the businesses and communities that support them, but for our nation’s economy as a whole. 

Every $1 billion in agricultural exports generates an additional $1.31 billion in economic activity and supports 8,400 American jobs. Agriculture continues to play an 

important role in support of President Obama’s National Export Initiative goal of 

doubling all U.S. exports within 5 years. 

As the President recently said, ‘‘We know what it will take for America to win 

the future. We need to out-innovate, we need to out-educate, we need to out-build 

our competitors. We need an economy that’s based not on what we consume and borrow from other nations, but what we make and what we sell around the world. We 

need to make America the best place on Earth to do business.’’ USDA stands ready 

to meet this challenge. 

We must open, expand, and maintain access to foreign markets, where 95 percent 

of the world’s consumers live. Participants from all corners of the U.S. agricultural 

community utilize FAS-administered trade programs to reach these consumers, complementing Administration efforts to open and maintain markets through trade negotiations, diplomacy, and enforcement of trade agreements. 

6

Market Development Programs 

FAS-administered export development programs include: the Market Access Program (MAP), Foreign Market Development (Cooperator) Program (FMD), Technical 

Assistance for Specialty Crops Program (TASC), Quality Samples Program (QSP), 

and Emerging Markets Program (EMP). These cost-share programs provide partial 

matching funds to eligible U.S. organizations to conduct a range of activities, including market research, consumer promotion, maintaining and expanding relations 

with foreign buyers, market development, and market access support. This partnership in market development programs provides a long-term commitment to support 

U.S. producers and exporters to increase sales to current and potential customers 

in foreign markets. FAS staff assists U.S. agricultural trade associations and others 

to develop programs that build on effective strategic planning, involve broad industry representation, identify the best prospects for their products overseas, and show 

positive results. 

Market Access Program (MAP) 

The largest market development program operated by the Department is the Market Access Program (MAP). MAP is a cost-share program that uses funds from 

USDA’s Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) to aid in the creation, expansion, and 

maintenance of foreign markets for U.S. agricultural products. MAP forms partnerships between nonprofit U.S. agricultural trade organizations, U.S. agricultural cooperatives, nonprofit State Regional Trade Groups, and small and medium-sized 

U.S. commercial entities to share the costs of overseas marketing and promotional 

activities, such as consumer promotions, market research, and trade show participation. The current farm bill makes available $200 million of CCC funds for MAP this 

year; that amount is paired with industry contributions. Applicants submit MAP 

proposals to USDA as part of a competitive Unified Export Strategy (UES) process, 

which allows applicants to request funding for various USDA foreign market development programs through a single, strategically coordinated proposal. One strength 

of the UES process is that utilizing the complementary nature of the various market 

development programs is emphasized. For example, using both MAP and Quality 

Sample Program (QSP) funds in a coordinated effort of technical support and test 

product, the Cranberry Marketing Committee has made great strides in developing 

the Mexican market by targeting food manufacturers. In just two years, 33 new 

products containing cranberries were introduced in Mexico, and U.S. cranberry exports increased by 42 percent in one year. 

In addition to generic promotions, MAP has a brand promotion component that 

provides export promotion funding to over 600 small companies and agricultural cooperatives annually. To conduct branded product promotion activities, individual 

companies must provide at least 50 percent of funding. Most small companies and 

agricultural producer cooperatives access market development programming 

through one of the four State Regional Trade Groups (SRTGs)—Food Export Association of the Midwest USA, Food Export USA Northeast, Southern United States 

Trade Association, and Western United States Agricultural Trade Association. The 

SRTGs work closely with the State Departments of Agriculture in their respective 

regions to identify eligible company participants and export opportunities, and then 

bring the two together. In that effort, SRTGs provide small companies with export 

readiness training and organize trade missions, as well as branded programming opportunities to directly access MAP funds for individual company promotions and 

trade show participation. 

WildRoots, a small healthy snack food company, with two production facilities in 

Illinois and one in Nebraska, matched MAP branded funds to market their products 

in Canada. Export sales soared from zero in 2008 to over $4 million in 2010. The 

company buys blueberries from Michigan, corn and soy products from Illinois, oats 

from Nebraska, cranberries from Massachusetts, and almonds from California. According to a WildRoots co-founder, ‘‘Without the branded program, we simply would 

never have been able to compete with Canadian producers. It has moved our business to a new level and has promoted U.S.-based agricultural products, creating jobs 

in an economy that desperately needs them.’’

Foreign Market Development (Cooperator) Program (FMD) 

The Foreign Market Development (Cooperator) Program (FMD) is a cost-share 

program that aids in the creation, expansion, and maintenance of long-term export 

markets for U.S. agricultural products. The current farm bill makes available $34.5 

million CCC funds for FMD this year. The program fosters a trade promotion partnership between USDA and U.S. agricultural producers and processors who are represented by nonprofit commodity or trade associations called Cooperators. Under 

this partnership, USDA and each Cooperator pool their technical and financial reVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:20 Jun 07, 2011 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 I:\DOCS\112-09\65893.TXT BRIAN
7

sources to conduct overseas market development activities that are generic in nature. Activities must contribute to the maintenance or growth of demand for the agricultural commodities and generally address long-term foreign import constraints 

and export growth opportunities. Programs focus on matters such as reducing 

infrastructural or historical market impediments, improving processing capabilities, 

modifying codes and standards, and identifying new markets or new applications or 

uses for the agricultural commodity or product in the foreign market. Twenty-one 

organizations representing a broad sample of U.S. agriculture, including peanuts, 

sunflower, soybeans, livestock genetics, dry beans, wheat, poultry, and rice, benefited from receiving a total of $34.15 million in Fiscal Year 2010 through the FMD 

program. 

Through the FMD program, U.S. sunflower producers’ activities are paying dividends in Spain. To increase awareness of confectionery sunflower seed and build demand in Spain, the National Sunflower Association (NSA) used FMD funding to create and implement an integrated and highly successful marketing program of trade 

advertisements, newsletters, trade shows, seminars, and trade missions. Through 

this work, U.S. sales to Spain reached nearly $270 million, making Spain the top 

market for U.S. confectionery sunflower seeds, and generating jobs in top sunflower 

producing states including Colorado, Kansas, Minnesota, North Dakota, Oklahoma, 

South Dakota, and Texas. 

Economic Impact of MAP and FMD Programs 

The economic impact of the MAP and FMD programs is impressive. An FAS commissioned cost-benefit analysis in March 2010 concluded that the programs effectively leveraged private and public sector resources in a unique partnership to increase U.S. food and agricultural exports. The analysis concluded for the time period 

2002 through 2009 that U.S. food and agricultural exports increased by $35 for 

every dollar invested by government and industry on market development. Additionally, U.S. agricultural exports in 2009 were $6.1 billion higher than they would have 

been without the increased investment in market development. The study also 

found that an estimated 47 percent of the programs’ total trade impact accrued to 

commodities not receiving market development assistance—a phenomenon known as 

the ‘‘halo’’ effect. In other words, non-promoted U.S. commodities benefited from increased promotion of other U.S. commodities in the same market. 

Quality Samples Program (QSP) 

The Quality Samples Program (QSP) helps U.S. agricultural trade organizations 

provide samples of their agricultural products to potential importers overseas, thus 

encouraging potential customers to discover U.S. quality. The QSP also allows manufacturers overseas to do test runs to assess how U.S. food and fiber products can 

best meet their production needs. USDA has approved QSP proposals to promote 

a wide variety of U.S. commodities, including wheat, citrus, cranberries, ginseng, 

hops, potatoes, hides, rice, and soybeans. Many other commodities are eligible. Organizations received funding allocations under QSP in Fiscal Year 2010 for approximately $1.89 million of CCC funds. 

One example of how QSP has fostered interest in U.S. product is sheepskin exports to China. The American Sheep Industry Association reports QSP as a key factor in convincing reluctant buyers to try U.S. sheepskins. Following QSP trials in 

China, two companies have become regular and consistent buyers of U.S. sheepskins. As of last year, U.S. sheepskin exports to China had increased significantly 

to 1.1 million pieces. 

Emerging Markets Program (EMP) 

In 2010, the Emerging Markets Program (EMP) assisted Wisconsin ginseng growers battle counterfeits. For more than a decade, the Ginseng Board of Wisconsin 

(GBW) has struggled with Chinese counterfeiters selling fake Wisconsin Ginseng. 

With 90 percent of its exports going to China, the GBW moved aggressively to regain control of its brand. Using EMP, GBW initiated research to develop a technique to detect trace elements of ginseng’s valuable root to Wisconsin or where it 

was grown originally; initial findings are promising. 

EMP is specifically designed to improve market access and develop or promote exports of U.S. agricultural commodities and products to low and middle income 

emerging markets through cost-share assistance to eligible applicants for approved 

technical assistance activities. Emerging markets are defined as those target countries or regional country groupings with per capita income of less than $11,905 (the 

current ceiling on upper middle income economies as determined by the World 

Bank) and populations greater than one million. Private, Federal, and state organizations are eligible to participate in EMP. For Fiscal Year 2010, the EMP program 

8

supported 83 agricultural export promotion projects with funding totaling $8.3 million. 

Technical Assistance for Specialty Crops (TASC) 

Last year, the Technical Assistance for Specialty Crops (TASC) program was instrumental in assisting the U.S. potato exporters in overcoming a Thai 

phytosanitary protocol that was preventing U.S. exports from certain states. Following several months of negotiations between the Thailand Department of Agriculture and USDA, the U.S. Potato Board (USPB) used TASC to arrange for Thai 

officials to visit the U.S. and review U.S. seed certification procedures, seed cultivation practices and phytosanitary mitigation measures. Following this activity, Thailand agreed to additional market access that more than doubles—to fourteen—the 

number of states eligible to export seed potatoes to Thailand. Seed potatoes from 

Colorado, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New York, North Dakota, Wisconsin and Wyoming may now be exported to Thailand. FAS estimates 

sales of $250,000 to $500,000 during the first year of Thai market access, while the 

USPB estimates that expanded market access could boost exports to Thailand to $1 

million in 3 to 5 years. 

Another example is U.S. hops exports to Canada. With more than $18 million in 

hops exports, Canada is the fifth largest export market for U.S. producers. In response to limited pesticide tolerances in Canada that potentially threatened trade, 

TASC funds supported U.S. hops industry efforts to work with regulators in Canada 

in establishing five new hops-related maximum residue levels in Canada for pesticides critical to U.S. hop production. The Canadian tolerances were set at safe levels that allow U.S. hop growers to apply essential U.S. crop protection tools that 

significantly reduce the risk of shipping hops to Canada. Given that over half of 

U.S. hop production is exported, the setting of pesticide tolerances in one of the industry’s most crucial export markets has been vital for this industry. 

These are just two examples of how U.S. exports have grown as sanitary, 

phytosanitary, and technical barriers that denied market access to U.S. agricultural 

products were resolved successfully. The TASC program assists U.S. food and agricultural organizations in addressing phytosanitary and technical barriers that prohibit or threaten the export of U.S. specialty crops. Using TASC, USDA has successfully helped U.S. exporters regain market access for millions of dollars of products 

from almonds to spinach. The current farm bill provides $9 million in CCC funds 

for the TASC program this year. 

Export Credit Guarantee Program (GSM–102) 

FAS, in conjunction with the Farm Service Agency, administers the CCC-funded 

export credit guarantee program (GSM–102) for commercial financing of U.S. agricultural exports. The GSM–102 program facilitates exports to buyers in countries 

where credit is necessary to maintain or increase U.S. sales. In FY 2010, guarantees 

covered $3.09 billion in sales that ran the gamut from corn to Costa Rica to soybeans to Indonesia and from wheat to Nigeria to wood chips to Turkey. In FY 2011, 

we expect to make available approximately $5.5 billion in GSM–102 guarantees for 

U.S. agricultural exporters to target sales to over 100 eligible country destinations. 

Conclusion 

As Administrator of USDA’s Foreign Agricultural Service, I am proud of our efforts to improve foreign market access for U.S. products, build new markets, and 

improve the competitive position of U.S. agriculture in the global marketplace. We 

look forward to continue working with Congress in support of our efforts to open 

markets around the world for U.S. agricultural products. Agricultural trade remains 

a bright spot in the U.S. economy, consistently producing a trade surplus and creating American jobs. As Secretary Vilsack said, ‘‘Our export success is a testament 

to the productivity of our farmers and ranchers and underscores the quality and 

value of U.S. farm and food products.’’ 

This concludes my statement. I look forward to answering any questions you may 

have. Thank you. 

ATTACHMENTS

Market Access Program 

The Market Access Program (MAP) uses funds from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) to aid in the development, 

expansion, and maintenance of foreign markets for U.S. agricultural commodities 

and products. The MAP is authorized by Section 203 of the Agricultural Trade Act 

of 1978, and is administered by USDA’s Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS). 

9

The MAP forms a partnership between nonprofit U.S. agricultural trade associations, nonprofit U.S. agricultural cooperatives, nonprofit state-regional trade groups, 

small U.S. businesses, and USDA’s CCC to share the costs of overseas marketing 

and promotional activities, such as trade shows, market research, consumer promotions, technical assistance, trade servicing, and seminars to educate overseas customers. 

How the program benefits U.S. agriculture: Each year, the MAP helps launch 

and expand sales of U.S. agricultural, fish, and forest products overseas. American 

farmers, ranchers, and food processors and manufacturers benefit from the MAP. 

The MAP benefits all regions of the country through increased exports and rural 

job expansion. 

How the program works: The MAP uses funds from the USDA’s CCC to cost 

share foreign market promotion activities with program participants. The Food, 

Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, enacted into law in June 2008, set funding 

for the MAP at $200 million annually through Fiscal Year 2012. Each year, USDA 

announces an application period for participation in the MAP, publishing an announcement in the Federal Register. Applicants develop MAP proposals and submit 

them to USDA as part of the Unified Export Strategy (UES) process, which allows 

applicants to request funding for various USDA foreign market development programs through a single, strategically coordinated proposal. 

MAP applications undergo a competitive review process based on criteria specified 

in the Federal Register announcement. Funds are awarded to applicants that demonstrate effective performance based on a clear, long-term strategic plan. FAS sets 

a program funding level and signs a program agreement with each participant. Participants must keep an itemized list of expenses incurred during the program year 

and submit them to FAS for reimbursement. Expenses are subject to audits, and 

participants are held accountable for maintaining proper documentation. 

Agricultural cooperatives and small companies can receive assistance under the 

brand program. A for-profit firm, other than a cooperative or producer association 

shall be a small-sized entity that either owns the brand of the agricultural commodity to be promoted or has the exclusive rights to use such brand(s). To conduct 

branded product promotion activities, individual companies must provide at least 50 

percent of funding. MAP regulations limit the promotion of branded products in a 

single country to no more than 5 years. For generic promotion activities, trade associations and others must meet a minimum ten percent match requirement. Participants are required to certify that Federal funds used under the program supplement—not replace—private sector funds. 

What commodities are covered: USDA has approved MAP proposals to promote a wide variety of U.S. commodities in almost every region of the world. Among 

those U.S. food and fiber products are apples, asparagus, canned peaches, fruit cocktail, catfish, cherries, citrus, cotton, dairy products, dry beans, eggs, feed grains, frozen potatoes, grapes, honey, hops, kiwifruit, meat, peanuts, pears, pet food, pistachios, poultry meat, prunes, raisins, rice, salmon, soybeans, strawberries, sunflower seeds, surimi, tallow, tomato products, walnuts, watermelons, and wheat. 

Where to get information: For more information about the MAP, contact the 

Office of Trade Programs at (202) 720–4327, or visit the following website at

http://www.fas.usda.gov/mos/programs/map.asp.

Information on FAS programs, trade data, and reports are available by accessing 

the FAS Home Page at: http://www.fas.usda.gov.

Fiscal Year 2010 Market Access Program Allocations 

Participant Total FY 2010

Allocation 

Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute $4,631,151

The American Hardwood Export Council, The Engineered Wood Association, The 

Softwood Export Council, & The Southern Forest & Paper Association $8,356,971

American Peanut Council $2,175,613

American Seed Trade Association $29,701

American Sheep Industry Association $410,298

American Soybean Association $5,751,073

Blue Diamond Growers/Almond Board of California $1,591,718

Brewers Association Inc. $371,779

California Agricultural Export Council $859,622

California Asparagus Commission $141,734

California Cherry Advisory Board $574,344

California Cling Peach Board $484,924

California Fresh Tomato Growers/Florida Tomato Committee $914,485

California Kiwifruit Commission $302,141

10

Fiscal Year 2010 Market Access Program Allocations—Continued

Participant Total FY 2010

Allocation 

California Pear Advisory Board $470,612

Cal-Pure Pistachios/Western Pistachio Association $928,895

California Prune Board $3,660,254

California Strawberry Commission $800,092

California Table Grape Commission $3,580,772

California Tree Fruit Agreement $2,498,896

California Walnut Commission $4,622,088

Cherry Marketing Institute $266,847

Cotton Council International $20,645,807

Cranberry Marketing Committee $1,657,476

Distilled Spirits Council $190,624

Florida Department of Citrus $5,284,889

Food Export Association of the Midwest USA $10,691,360

Food Export USA Northeast $7,902,946

Ginseng Board of Wisconsin $186,065

Hawaii Papaya Industry Association $138,654

Hop Growers of America $190,321

Intertribal Agriculture Council $825,196

Mohair Council of America $118,256

National Association of State Department of Agriculture $3,676,089

National Confectioners Association $1,420,238

National Hay Association $36,555

National Potato Promotion Board $5,231,810

National Renderers Association $824,664

National Sunflower Association $1,168,455

National Watermelon Promotion Board $235,408

New York Wine and Grape Foundation $361,829

Northwest Wine Promotion Coalition $941,717

Organic Trade Association $376,953

Pear Bureau Northwest $3,496,630

Pet Food Institute $1,460,439

Raisin Administrative Committee $3,274,710

Southern United States Trade Association $6,579,951

Sunkist Growers, Inc. $4,072,982

Texas Produce Export Association $105,344

The Catfish Institute $290,442

The Popcorn Board $250,738

U.S. Apple Export Council $885,335

U.S. Dairy Export Council $4,515,671

U.S. Dry Bean Council $1,079,781

U.S. Grains Council $8,232,494

U.S. Hide, Skin & Leather Association $107,918

U.S. Livestock Genetics Exports, Inc. $968,886

U.S. Meat Export Federation $16,495,353

U.S. Wheat Associates $5,790,604

USA Dry Pea and Lentil Council $1,008,314

USA Poultry and Egg Export Council $5,218,646

USA Rice Federation/U.S. Rice Producers Association $3,834,882

Washington State Fruit Commission $1,128,068

Washington Apple Commission $5,381,945

Welch Foods, Inc. $907,177

Western United States Agricultural Trade Association $9,674,062

Wine Institute $7,152,261

Total $197,441,955

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on 

the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, 

and marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who 

require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) 

should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720–2600 (voice and TDD). 

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326–W, Whitten 

Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington D.C. 20250–9410 or call (202) 720–5964 (voice or 

TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. 

Foreign Market Development Cooperator Program 

The Foreign Market Development Cooperator (FMD) Program uses funds from the 

U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) to 

create, expand, and maintain long-term export markets for U.S. agricultural prodVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:20 Jun 07, 2011 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 I:\DOCS\112-09\65893.TXT BRIAN
11

ucts. First established under the authority of Public Law 480, the FMD was re-authorized by Title VII of the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978, and is administrated 

by USDA’s Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS). 

The program has fostered a cost-sharing trade promotion partnership between 

USDA and U.S. agricultural producers and processors, who are represented by nonprofit commodity or trade associations called Cooperators. FAS enters into partnerships with those eligible nonprofit U.S. trade organizations that have the broadest 

producer representation of the commodity being promoted. Under this partnership, 

USDA and the Cooperators pool their technical and financial resources to conduct 

overseas market development. 

How the program benefits U.S. agriculture: The FMD benefits U.S. farmers, 

processors, and exporters by assisting their organizations in maintaining or increasing market share in existing markets by addressing long-term foreign market import constraints and by identifying new markets or new uses for the agricultural 

commodity or product in the foreign market. Overseas promotions focus on generic 

U.S. commodities, rather than brand-name products, and are targeted toward longterm development. 

How the program works: Under the FMD, CCC funds partially reimburse cooperators for conducting approved overseas promotional activities. Preference is 

given to nonprofit U.S. agricultural and trade groups that represent an entire industry or are nationwide in membership and scope. 

Each year USDA announces an application period for participation in the FMD 

program and publishes it in the Federal Register. Proposals are developed by trade 

organizations and may be submitted to USDA as part of the Unified Export Strategy (UES) process, which allows applicants to request funding for several USDA foreign market development programs using a single, strategically coordinated proposal. FMD regulations (7 CFR 1484) define program requirements, including costsharing, strategic planning, reimbursement procedures, records and reporting requirements, and evaluations. 

FMD applications undergo a competitive review process. Funds are awarded to 

applicants that demonstrate effective performance based on a clear long-term strategic plan. Cooperators must keep an itemized list of expenses incurred during the 

program year and submit them to USDA for reimbursement. All expenses are subject to audits, and Cooperators are accountable for maintaining proper documentation. 

Where to get information: For more information on the FMD program, contact 

the Office of Trade Programs at (202) 720–4327, or visit the following website at

http://www.fas.usda.gov/mos/programs/fmdprogram.asp. 

General information about FAS programs, resources, and services is available on 

the Internet at the FAS home page: http://www.fas.usda.gov.

Fiscal Year 2010 Foreign Market Development Program Allocations 

Cooperator Total FY 2010

Allocation 

The American Hardwood Export Council, The Engineered Wood Association, The 

Softwood Export Council, & The Southern Forest & Paper Association $3,530,482

American Peanut Council $737,985

American Seed Trade Association $228,073

American Sheep Industry Association $183,479

American Soybean Association $7,273,160

Cotton Council International $5,052,334

Leather Industries of America $162,157

Mohair Council of America $15,768

National Hay Association $78,325

National Renderers Association $945,818

National Sunflower Association $259,748

North American Millers’ Association $60,797

U.S. Dairy Export Council $752,301

U.S. Dry Bean Council $138,264

U.S. Grains Council $4,342,466

U.S. Hide, Skin and Leather Association $155,983

U.S. Livestock Genetics Export, Inc. $763,923

U.S. Meat Export Federation $1,846,115

U.S. Wheat Associates $4,178,916

USA Dry Pea and Lentil Council $185,694

USA Poultry and Egg Export Council $1,613,144

USA Rice Federation $1,645,068

Total $34,150,000

12

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on 

the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, 

and marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who 

require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) 

should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720–2600 (voice and TDD). 

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326–W, Whitten 

Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington D.C. 20250–9410 or call (202) 720–5964 (voice or 

TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. 

Emerging Markets Program 

The Emerging Markets Program (EMP) is a market access program that provides 

funding for technical assistance activities intended to promote exports of U.S. agricultural commodities and products to emerging markets in all geographic regions, 

consistent with U.S. foreign policy. The program is authorized by the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990, as amended. The EMP regulations appear at 7 CFR part 1486. Funding is set at $10 million each fiscal year from the 

Commodity Credit Corporation from now through the end of the current farm bill. 

The EMP is a generic program. Its resources may be used to support exports of 

U.S. agricultural commodities and products only through generic activities. Projects 

that endorse or promote branded products are not eligible for the Program. 

Funding is provided through three channels: (1) the Central Fund, the principle 

means of funding, made available through a public announcement; (2) the Technical 

Issues Resolution Fund (TIRF), to address technical barriers to those issues that are 

time sensitive and are strategic areas of longer term interest; and (3) the Quick Response Marketing Fund (QRMF), to assist with short-term time-sensitive marketing 

opportunities. 

What is an Emerging Market? The legislation defines an emerging market as 

any country that ‘‘is taking steps toward a market-oriented economy through the 

food, agriculture, or rural business sectors of the economy of the country,’’ and ‘‘has 

the potential to provide a viable and significant market for United States commodities or products of United States agricultural commodities.’’

There is no fixed list of ‘‘emerging market’’ countries. Because funds are limited 

and the range of emerging markets is worldwide, the Program uses certain administrative criteria, in addition to the legal definition above, to determine whether a 

country is considered an emerging market:

(1) Per capita income of less than $12,195, the current ceiling on upper middle 

income economies as determined by the World Bank.

(2) Population greater than one million (may encompass regional groupings, 

such as the islands of the Caribbean Basin).

Guidance on qualified emerging markets is provided each year in the Program’s 

application announcement. 

Program Priorities: The principal purpose of the program is to assist U.S. organizations, public and private, to improve market access by developing, maintaining, 

or enhancing U.S. exports to low- and middle-income countries which have or are 

developing market-oriented economies, and which can be viable markets for these 

products. The underlying premise is that emerging agricultural markets have distinctive characteristics that benefit from U.S. governmental assistance before the 

private sector moves to develop these markets through normal trade promotional activities. All agricultural commodities except tobacco are eligible for consideration. 

Cost-share, the funding U.S. private organizations are willing to commit from 

their own resources to seek export business in an emerging market, is one of the 

requirements needed in an application in order to qualify for funding assistance 

under the EMP. Justification for Federal funding is also required. 

Types of Projects and Activities: Funding is on a project-by-project basis. 

Many types of technical assistance activities that promote markets for U.S. agricultural products may be eligible for funding. Examples include feasibility studies, 

market research, sectorial assessments, orientation visits, specialized training, and 

business workshops. The program is not intended for projects targeted at end-user 

consumers. Ineligible activities include in-store promotions; restaurant promotions; 

branded product promotions (including labeling and supplementing normal company 

sales activities designed to increase awareness and stimulate sales of branded products); equipment purchases; costs of new product development; administrative and 

operational expenses for trade shows; advertising; preparation and printing of brochures, flyers, posters, etc., except in connection with specific technical assistance 

13

activities, such as training seminars; and design and development of Internet 

websites. 

The program complements other FAS marketing programs. Once a market access 

issue has been addressed by the EMP, further market development activities may 

be considered under other FAS programs. 

Eligible Organizations: Any U.S. agricultural or agribusiness organization, university, state department of agriculture, or USDA agency (or other Federal agency 

involved in agricultural issues) is eligible to participate in the EMP. Preference will 

be given to proposals indicating significant support and involvement by private industry. Proposals will be considered from research and consulting organizations only 

as long as they can demonstrate evidence of substantial participation by U.S. industry. For-profit entities are also eligible, but may not use program funds to conduct 

private business, promote private self-interests, supplement the costs of normal 

sales activities, or promote their own products or services beyond specific uses approved for a given project. USDA market development cooperators may seek funding 

to address priority, market-specific issues or to undertake activities not already 

serviced by or unsuitable for funding under other FAS marketing programs, such 

as the Foreign Market Development Program and Market Access Program. 

The opportunities for applying to the EMP during the annual open solicitation periods are announced in the Federal Register and on the FAS website. 

Advisory Committee on Emerging Markets: A private sector advisory committee provides information and advice to help USDA develop strategies for providing technical assistance and enhancing markets for U.S. agricultural products in 

developing markets. More specifically, committee members review, from a non-governmental perspective, certain qualified proposals submitted for EMP funding assistance. The Secretary of Agriculture appoints members to the Committee for 2 

year terms. 

More Information: Further details on the EMP, including the funding options 

under the program (the Central Fund, the Technical Issues Resolution Fund, and 

the Quick Response Marketing Fund), additional qualification requirements, the application and proposal review process, and administrative policies and procedures 

are contained in the Program Regulations, on the FAS Internet site below. For additional information, contact the USDA–FAS Program Operations Division, Grant Programs Branch, Phone: (202) 720–4327, Fax: (202) 720–9361, E-mail: 

podadmin@fas.usda.gov, Internet: http://www.fas.usda.gov/mos/em-markets/emmarkets.asp.

Fiscal Year 2010 Emerging Markets Program Allocations 

Market Activity Title Amount 

Bangladesh Cotton USA Technical Assistance Initiative in Bangladesh for the 

Cotton Council International 

$200,000

Brazil Brazil Craft Beer School Seminars for the Brewers Association $30,000

Brazil Market Feasibility Study of Brazil for the Alaska Seafood Marketing 

Institute 

$15,041

China Food Consumption in China’s Second-Tier Cities: The New Frontier 

for U.S. Agricultural Export Opportunities for the University of 

Florida 

$468,600

China Exporting U.S. Dairy Genetics to China for Cooperative Resources 

International 

$277,632

China Hotel, Restaurant, and Institutional Sector Development for USDA/

Foreign Agricultural Service/Chengdu 

$212,000

China Distributor Development Program for Emerging City Markets for 

USDA/Foreign Agricultural Service 

$183,000

China Global Food Safety Forum: China Exchange for the GIC Group $174,431

China Phase Three of the China Moon Cake Project for the California Agricultural Export Council $120,000

China Fresh Produce in China: Identifying Logistic Constraints and Consumer Trends for SIAM Professionals, LLC $101,011

China Turkey Market Development in China—Expanding Demand for U.S. 

Turkey in China by Increasing its Use in Local Cuisine for the 

Minnesota Department of Agriculture 

$90,000

China China Familiarization Tour of Organic Farms, Retail, and Processors 

for the Organic Trade Association 

$90,000

China China Pecan Project for the Georgia Pecan Growers Association $70,800

China Implementation of Science-based Principles in Risk Management for 

USDA/Foreign Agricultural Service 

$52,560

14

Fiscal Year 2010 Emerging Markets Program Allocations—Continued

Market Activity Title Amount 

China Assessment of Exports of Hawaii Fresh and Processed Agricultural 

Products to China Markets Under a Memorandum of Understanding with the Chinese Ministry of Commerce, Beijing International Brand Management Center for the Hawaii Department of 

Agriculture 

$79,818

China China Beer Distributors Education Program for the Brewers Association $35,000

China China Food Safety Law Training for USDA/Foreign Agricultural 

Service 

$27,406

China Reverse Trade Mission of Chinese Tanneries for the U.S. Hide, Skin 

and Leather Association 

$14,400

Egypt Food and Drug Administration Middle East and North Africa Food 

Safety Workshop for Regulators for USDA/Foreign Agricultural 

Service 

$4,690

El Salvador U.S. Rice Market Research for the U.S. Rice Producers Association $31,000

Ghana Ghana Lake Volta Soy in Aquaculture Program for the American 

Soybean Association 

$96,475

Global Emerging Markets Exploratory Market Research To Identify Opportunities and Launch 

Preliminary Trade Servicing, Education, and/or Promotional Activities in Emerging Markets for the U.S. Apple Export Council 

$259,000

Global Emerging Markets Exporting Genomic-Proven U.S. Dairy Genetics, Enhancing Producer 

Product Knowledge, Demonstrating U.S. Genomic Sire Proofs and 

the New Generation of Dairy Sires for Cooperative Resources 

International 

$206,100

Global Emerging Markets Global Pesticide Tolerance Initiative for U.S. Specialty Crops: Technical and Policy Guidance to Emerging Markets for USDA/Foreign 

Agricultural Service 

$196,770

Global Emerging Markets Technical Support for U.S. Seed Potato Exports, Introduction of Cut 

Seeds to Foreign Markets for the National Potato Promotion 

Board 

$195,000

Global Emerging Markets Foreign Country Audits of U.S. Red Meat Facilities for the U.S. 

Meat Export Federation 

$184,400

Global Emerging Markets Worldwide Market Development for the Northwest Wine Promotion 

Coalition 

$60,000

Global Emerging Markets Access and Benefit Sharing for Genetic Resources Used in U.S. Food 

and Agriculture Exports for USDA/Foreign Agricultural Service 

$55,566

Global Emerging Markets Translations of Foreign World Trade Organization Sanitary and 

Phytosanitary and Technical Barriers to Trade Notifications for 

USDA/Foreign Agricultural Service 

$52,000

Global Emerging Markets Advancing U.S. Positions on Pesticide Regulatory Standards for 

USDA/Foreign Agricultural Service 

$9,880

Guatemala U.S. Rice Market Research for the U.S. Rice Producers Association $31,000

India India Food Safety Seminars for USDA/Foreign Agricultural Service $89,175

India Reverse Trade Mission for Retailers and Wholesalers from India for 

the Produce Marketing Association 

$75,438

India India Export Market Opportunity Assessment and Familiarization 

Tour for the Organic Trade Association 

$75,000

India India Retail Education Activities Reverse Mission Retail Training 

Seminars for the Pear Bureau Northwest 

$60,000

India India Pecan Project for the Georgia Pecan Growers Association $55,200

Indonesia Indonesia-U.S. Partnership: Agricultural Technology and Investment 

Forum for the Texas A&M Norman Borlaug Institute 

$51,000

Indonesia Technical Assistance for the Republic of Indonesia’s National Agency 

for Drug and Food Control to Better Understand the U.S. System 

To Ensure the Safety of Processed Foods for USDA/Foreign Agricultural Service 

$41,014

Indonesia Product Introduction, Care and Handling, and Merchandising Technique Seminars for Fresh Sweet Cherries for the Washington 

State Fruit Commission 

$14,000

Iraq Trade Mission to Iraq for USDA/Foreign Agricultural Service $137,352

Jamaica U.S. Technical and Regulatory Orientation for Jamaican Food Import Authorities for USDA/Foreign Agricultural Service/Dominican 

Republic 

$17,676

Malaysia Agricultural Biotechnology Outreach to Malaysian Officials for 

USDA/Foreign Agricultural Service/Kuala Lumpur 

$130,535

Malaysia Technical Workshop on Coated Foods Applications for the USA Dry 

Pea and Lentil Council 

$56,086

Mongolia 2010 Microbiology and International Residue Training Seminars for 

International Government Laboratory Officials for USDA/Foreign 

Agricultural Service/Beijing 

$21,650

Mongolia Food Safety and Inspection Service Meat and Poultry Inspection 

Seminar for USDA/Foreign Agricultural Service/Beijing 

$21,650

15

Fiscal Year 2010 Emerging Markets Program Allocations—Continued

Market Activity Title Amount 

Nigeria, Senegal, Cameroon Increasing Access to U.S. Soy Products in Nigeria, Senegal, and 

Cameroon for the American Soybean Association 

$250,000

Pakistan U.S. Soy Food Product Promotion in Pakistan for the American Soybean Association $152,224

Pakistan Opening Pakistan to U.S. Dairy and Genetics for World Wide Sires, 

Ltd. 

$111,755

Philippines Philippines Agricultural Biotechnology Regulatory Outreach for 

USDA/Foreign Agricultural Service/Manila 

$63,584

Poland Second Phase of Market Development in Poland for California Almonds for the Almond Board of California $100,000

Regional: Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation 

(APEC) 

APEC High-Level Policy Dialogue Workshop on Approaches and 

Tools To Promote Investment in Agricultural Biotechnology for 

USDA/Foreign Agricultural Service 

$153,936

Regional: APEC APEC Export Certification Roundtable for USDA/Foreign Agricultural Service $108,800

Regional: APEC APEC High-Level Policy Dialogue on Agricultural Biotechnology for 

USDA/Foreign Agricultural Service 

$187,174

Regional: Caribbean Basin Central American Microbiological Standards Program for USDA/Foreign Agricultural Service $142,356

Regional: Caribbean Basin Maintaining Access for U.S. Exports to the Caribbean for USDA/Foreign Agricultural Service $96,270

Regional: Caribbean Basin Caribbean Food Safety Program for USDA/Foreign Agricultural 

Service 

$93,300

Regional: Central America-Dominican Republic 

Free Trade Agreement 

(CAFTA–DR) 

Food Safety Standard-Setting Training for Participants in CAFTA–

DR for USDA/Foreign Agricultural Service 

$97,400

Regional: Latin America Furthering Approvals of Genetically Engineered Plants Through 

Promotion of Data Transportability for the International Life 

Sciences Institute Research Foundation 

$413,785

Regional: Latin America U.S. Outreach Effort To Influence Negotiation by Parties to the 

Cartagena Protocol for Biosafety for USDA/Foreign Agricultural 

Service 

$157,378

Regional: Latin America Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture (http://

www.iica.int/Eng/Pages/default.aspx) 

Workshop for Latin America Countries on the Annex (LLP Annex) to 

the Codex Guideline for the Conduct of Food Safety Assessment of 

Foods Derived from Recombinant-DNA Plants for USDA/Foreign 

Agricultural Service 

$72,140

Regional: Latin America Promotion of Consumer-Oriented Agricultural Products for Latin 

America through the International Supermarket Management 

Class for IGA International, Inc. 

$56,462

Regional: Latin America, 

Caribbean Basin 

Western Hemisphere Codex Delegates’ Colloquium for USDA/Foreign Agricultural Service $103,310

Regional: Latin America, 

Caribbean Basin 

Enhancing Latin American and Caribbean Participation in Codex for 

USDA/Foreign Agricultural Service 

$100,000

Regional: Southeast Asia Southeast Asia Fruit and Vegetable Consumer Trends, Preferences 

Research for the Washington Apple Commission 

$223,218

Regional: Southeast Asia Increasing Understanding of U.S. and International Flavor Safety 

Evaluation Processes for the Flavor and Extract Manufacturers 

Association 

$137,850

Regional: Southeast Asia Baking with Pea Flour in Southeast Asia for the USA Dry Pea and 

Lentil Council 

$63,573

Regional: Southeast Asia Nutritional and Technical Information on Dry Beans for Southeast 

Asian Buyers for the U.S. Dry Bean Council 

$46,820

Regional: Southeast Asia Second Phase of U.S. Dairy in Selected Asian Bakery Markets 

Project for the California Milk Advisory Board 

$37,667

Russia Review of U.S. Poultry Slaughter and Cold Storage Facilities for the 

USA Poultry and Egg Export Council 

$120,000

Russia Russia Retail Education Activities Reverse Mission Retail Training 

Seminars for the Pear Bureau Northwest 

$87,200

Russia Research To Identify Opportunities and Launch Trade Servicing, 

Education, and Promotion in Russia for the California Prune 

Board 

$70,000

Russia U.S.-Russia Bilateral Consultative Mechanism on Biotechnology 

Technical Exchange Meeting for USDA/Foreign Agricultural Service 

$26,342

South Africa, Mauritius, 

Zimbabwe, Mozambique 

Southern Africa Biotechnology Outreach for South Africa, Mauritius, 

Zimbabwe, and Mozambique for USDA/Foreign Agricultural Service/Pretoria 

$109,265

Sri Lanka Prospecting for U.S. Feedstuff and Soymeal Sales in Sri Lanka for 

the Iowa Soybean Association 

$84,206

16

Fiscal Year 2010 Emerging Markets Program Allocations—Continued

Market Activity Title Amount 

Sri Lanka Biotechnology Training for Senior Level Sri Lankan Officials for 

USDA/Foreign Agricultural Service 

$5,000

Thailand Thailand Importer Developer Program for the Southern United 

States Trade Association 

$185,535

Thailand Technical Support to U.S. Frozen Potato Tariff Reduction Efforts in 

Thailand for the National Potato Promotion Board 

$84,235

Thailand Restrictive Labeling Requirements for Alcoholic Beverages to Thailand for USDA/Foreign Agricultural Service $36,450

Turkey Biotech Speakers for Istanbul Seminar and Public Outreach for 

USDA/Foreign Agricultural Service/Ankara 

$38,680

Turkey U.S. Dairy Genetics to Turkey, Overcoming Unjustifiable Regulatory 

Barriers for the National Association of Animal Breeders 

$22,551

Turkey Expanding Indiana Hardwood Exports in Turkey for the Indiana 

State Department of Agriculture 

$20,900

Vietnam Vietnamese Wet Blue Buyers Team to the United States for the 

Leather Industries of America 

$32,450

Total Allocations $8,193,172

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on 

the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, 

and marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who 

require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) 

should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720–2600 (voice and TDD). 

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326–W, Whitten 

Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington D.C. 20250–9410 or call (202) 720–5964 (voice or 

TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. 

Technical Assistance for Specialty Crops Program 

The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 reauthorized the Technical Assistance for Specialty Crops (TASC) Program and provided mandatory Commodity 

Credit Corporation (CCC) resources of $4 million in FY 2008, $7 million in FY 2009, 

$8 million in FY 2010, and $9 million in FY 2011 and FY 2012. 

How the program benefits U.S. agriculture: The TASC program is designed 

to assist U.S. organizations by providing funding for projects that address sanitary, 

phytosanitary and related technical barriers that prohibit or threaten the export of 

U.S. specialty crops. For purposes of the TASC program, a ‘‘specialty crop’’ is defined 

as all cultivated plants and the products thereof produced in the United States except wheat, feed grains, oilseeds, cotton, rice, peanuts, sugar, and tobacco. Examples 

of activities these grants may cover include seminars and workshops, study tours, 

field surveys, pest and disease research, and pre-clearance programs. 

How the program works: TASC proposals are accepted from any U.S. organization, including, but not limited to, nonprofit trade associations, universities, agricultural cooperatives, private companies, U.S. Government agencies and state government agencies. The Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS), which administers the program, provides grant funds as direct assistance to U.S. organizations. Applicant contributions are not required, but are strongly encouraged. 

Each year, the U.S. Department of Agriculture announces an application period 

for participation in the TASC program, publishing it in the Federal Register. TASC 

applications undergo a competitive review process based on criteria specified in 7 

CFR part 1487 and in the Federal Register announcement. Funds are awarded to 

applicants that demonstrate how their projects will overcome trade barriers resulting in market access retention and expansion for specialty crops. Awards are for a 

maximum of $500,000 per year and for projects of up to 5 years. Proposals may target any eligible export market, including single countries or reasonable regional 

groupings of countries. Applicants may submit multiple proposals, but no TASC participant may have more than five projects underway at the same time. Funds may 

be requested as advance payments or on a reimbursement basis. Participants are 

required to maintain records and documents associated with the program agreement. 

Additional Information: To submit a TASC proposal or to find more about the 

program, contact the USDA–FAS Programs Operations Division, Grant Programs 

Branch; by phone: (202) 720–4327; e-mail: podadmin@fas.usda.gov; or the Internet 

at: http://www.fas.usda.gov/mos/tasc/tasc.asp. 

17

Information on FAS programs, trade data and reports are available by accessing 

the FAS Home Page at: http://www.fas.usda.gov.

Fiscal Year 2010 Technical Assistance for Specialty Crops Program 

Allocations 

Participant Project Title Amount 

Almond Board of California European Union Health and Port Authorities Seminar and Tour $24,750

Bryant Christie, Inc. Maximum Residue Level Database Funding for Specialty Crops and 

Hawaiian Papayas 

$450,662

California Citrus Quality 

Council 

California Navel Valencia Exports to Korea Program, Korea Inspectors’ Visit $124,562

California Department of 

Food and Agriculture 

Minimizing Trade Barriers through Field Surveys for the European 

Grapevine Moth 

$500,000

California Dried Plum 

Board 

Retaining Export and Food Security of U.S. Specialty Crops: LowEmission Methyl Bromide Fumigation for Quarantine and PreShipment Uses 

$1,458,772

California Fig Advisory 

Board 

Encourage Japanese Government To Allow Potassium Sorbate Treatment on High-Moisture Figs $100,000

California Grape and 

Tree Fruit League 

To Develop Efficacy Data Through a Pilot Systems Approach for 

Peach Twig Borer for U.S. Stone Fruit to Australia 

$54,388

California Pistachio Export Council Improve Navel Orange Worm Control in Pistachios To Overcome Sanitary and Phytosanitary Barriers in Major Export Markets $1,195,500

California Specialty 

Crops Council 

Global Maximum Residue Levels Engaging Specialty Crops in Priority Setting, Planning, and Compliance $98,000

California Strawberry 

Commission 

Spotted Wing Drosophila Impacts in Strawberry Exports $46,989

California Table Grape 

Commission 

Post-Harvest Control of Light Brown Apple Moth on Fresh Grapes $90,000

California Table Grape 

Export Association 

Australian Phytosanitary Preclearance Program $150,000

California Walnut Commission Development of Technical Brochures $66,836

Citrus Research Board of 

California 

Mortality of Asian Citrus Psyllid, Diaphorina Citri, in California Citrus During Packaging and Export to Australia $216,303

Florida Citrus Packers Determination of Canker Survival and Transmission via CankerBlemished Fruit Relative to International Market Access $489,447

Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association Management, Maintenance, and Expansion of the U.S.-Canada Pesticide Harmonization Database $389,464

Georgia Peach Council/

South Carolina Peach 

Council 

Export of Fresh, Systems-Protected Georgia and South Carolina 

Peaches to Mexico 

$240,000

Indian River Citrus 

League 

Best Post-Harvest Handling Practices to Assure Canker-Free Fresh 

Citrus Fruit Exports 

$120,000

Northwest Horticultural 

Council 

Changing India’s Phytosanitary Access Requirements for Pacific 

Northwest Cherries; OFM Monitoring and Verification at Origin 

Program for the Export of Peaches and Nectarines to Mexico; Study 

of Potential Health Effects Associated with the Use of Wax Coatings on Produce 

$66,060

Rutgers University, IR–4 

Project 

Actions To Facilitate Global Maximum Residue Levels for Priority 

Use on Specialty Crops 

$627,199

U.S. Apple Export Council Apple Maggot and Other Pests of Concern-Identification Treatment 

Methodologies and Data Collection 

$158,122

USDA, Agricultural Research Service Classical Biological Control of the Invasive White Peach Scale on Papaya in Hawaii; Phosphine Fumigation Treatment for Post-Harvest 

Inspect Control on Lettuce; Evaluating the Efficacy of Systems Approach Components for the Western Cherry Fruit Fly 

$155,710

USDA, Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service (APHIS) 

Development of Irradiation Treatment for High-Impact Invasive Species and Evaluation of Commodity Tolerance to Irradiation Treatments 

$175,000

USDA, APHIS, Center for 

Plant Health Science 

and Technology 

(CPHST) 

Development of Infrastructure and Capacity for U.S. Export Specialty 

Crops Irradiation Treatments 

$165,000

USDA, APHIS, Plant Protection and Quarantine 

and CPHST 

A Prototype Electronic Identification Resource To Support Agricultural Commodity Trade: California Table Grapes $133,907

Washington State Department of Agriculture Establishment of Japan ‘‘Import Tolerance’’ Maximum Residue Level 

for Bifenezate in Red Raspberries 

$38,000

Total $7,334,671

18

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on 

the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, 

and marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who 

require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) 

should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720–2600 (voice and TDD). 

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326–W, Whitten 

Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington D.C. 20250–9410 or call (202) 720–5964 (voice or 

TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. 

Quality Samples Program 

The Quality Samples Program (QSP) helps U.S. agricultural trade organizations 

provide samples of their agricultural products to potential importers overseas. 

Focusing on industry and manufacturing, as opposed to end-use consumers, the 

QSP permits potential customers to discover U.S. quality. The QSP also allows manufacturers overseas to do test runs to assess how U.S. food and fiber products can 

best meet their production needs. In 2010, the U.S. Department of Agriculture 

(USDA) provided allocations totaling about $1.9 million to trade associations and 

state agricultural organizations under this program. 

How the program benefits U.S. agriculture: QSP stimulates interest and demand for U.S. agricultural products. Increased opportunities for agricultural exports 

ripple throughout the U.S. economy. 

How the program works: Each year, USDA announces an application period for 

participation in the QSP, publishing it in the Federal Register. Trade organizations 

and private firms can submit QSP proposals to USDA as part of the Unified Export 

Strategy (UES). 

QSP applications undergo a competitive review process based on criteria specified 

in the Federal Register announcement. Participants approved for QSP funding obtain commodity samples, export them and provide the importer the technical assistance necessary to use the sample properly. When a project is finished, USDA reimburses the participants for the costs of procuring and transporting the samples. The 

technical assistance component is a requirement of the program but is not reimbursable under the QSP. 

USDA’s Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) funds the program, which is authorized under the CCC Charter Act. 

What commodities are covered: USDA has approved QSP proposals to promote 

a wide variety of U.S. commodities, including wheat, citrus, cranberries, mohair, 

hides, rice, and soybeans. Many other commodities are eligible. 

Additional Information: To submit a QSP proposal or to learn more about the 

program, contact the USDA–FAS Program Operations Division, Grant Programs 

Branch, Phone: (202) 720–4327, Fax: (202) 720–9361; E-mail: 

podadmin@fas.usda.gov, Internet: http://www.fas.usda.gov/mos/programs/

QSP.asp. 

Information on FAS programs, trade data and reports are available by accessing 

the FAS Home Page at: http://www.fas.usda.gov.

Fiscal Year 2010 Quality Samples Program Allocations 

Participant Market(s) Amount 

Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute China $28,000

American Sheep Industry Association China, Eastern Europe, India, Mexico, Western Europe $365,000

American Soybean Association Ghana, Palestine $47,000

California Agricultural Export Council China $300,000

California Walnut Commission China $25,000

Cranberry Marketing Committee Austria, France, Germany, Korea, Mexico, Netherlands, 

Spain, Switzerland 

$72,000

Ginseng Board of Wisconsin China, Korea, Japan, Taiwan, $170,000

Hop Growers of America Brazil, China, Germany, Russia $5,000

Mohair Council of America China, India, South Africa, South America, Southeast 

Asia, Western Europe 

$225,000

National Potato Promotion Board Brazil, Central America, China, Egypt, Indonesia, 

Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, Nicaragua, Philippines, 

South Korea, Sri Lanka, Sub-Saharan Africa, Thailand, Vietnam 

$455,000

U.S. Grains Council Egypt, Saudi Arabia $66,500

U.S. Livestock Genetics Export, Inc. Russia $64,100

U.S. Wheat Associates Morocco $66,740

Total $1,889,340

19

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on 

the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, 

and marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who 

require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) 

should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720–2600 (voice and TDD). 

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326–W, Whitten 

Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington D.C. 20250–9410 or call (202) 720–5964 (voice or 

TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. 

20


11209001
21


11209002
22


11209003
23


11209004
24


11209005
25


11209006
26

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Brewer. Let me just ask an initial question, and I will let you use it as a springboard to answer 

it in whatever way you think is appropriate. 

As you know, the blueprint for Fiscal Year 2012 spending has 

been unveiled this week, as a matter of fact, probably will come to 

the Floor next week. From a standpoint of expenditures and from 

a standpoint of what your agency realizes in terms of revenues to 

the government, I don’t want to focus on the budget so much as I 

want to focus on what you do, what it costs, and what it brings in 

to our collective Federal entity here. 

Mr. BREWER. Mr. Chairman, if I understand your question correctly, you want to know exactly what are the benefits of each of 

the programs? 

The CHAIRMAN. No. I guess I want to know in bigger terms 

whether what you are doing you believe ultimately produces revenue for us. I guess I am looking through to see what the real cost 

benefits are of your program. I think we know what the benefits 

are to our agricultural sector. Do you also see those benefits 

streaming through, so to speak, in an economic sense? 

Mr. BREWER. Yes, sir. Certainly. I think what I would start with 

is that the benefit of these programs certainly is American jobs. 

For example, the MAP Program. An Oregon softwood producer out 

on the West Coast participated in one of our programs, which was 

a trade mission that was funded by MAP Programs. Through the 

contacts that that manufacturer made, they were able to secure 

contracts of over $3 million. That $3 million was able to keep a mill 

that was scheduled to be closed, open, saving 65 American jobs. 

Another example would be probably the tax base that is helped 

by the programs and the private sector initiatives that we have 

with our partners that brings in income to our farmers and ranchers, which, in turn, works into the economy and grows. 

The CHAIRMAN. One of the concerns that has been raised by the 

people analyzing the program is that the President’s new initiative 

essentially takes programs that were already doing pretty effectively and gives them a new name and that as a matter of fact, 

there may be the potential for duplication in that area. 

What would you respond to those critics? 

Mr. BREWER. Well, sir, I will take your question in two parts because it sounds like there is an NEI component to it, the National 

Export Initiative, component to it and then just an overall question 

of duplication. 

Regarding duplication, we do not see that in our export promotion programs. Each program is designed to deal with a particular challenge to Americans trying to export their products to 

foreign markets. When you put them together, they also form a 

very comprehensive and effective tool to, again, meet challenges 

that may face U.S. exporters. 

For example, one thing that our cooperators, the U.S. Hay Association, is doing is they used our Quality Samples Program to introduce into the Chinese market U.S. hay. Building on that introduction of samples of our product, we were then able to move into 

using FMD Programs, Foreign Market Development Programs, to 

stay in that market and to build a market share and to gain marVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:20 Jun 07, 2011 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 I:\DOCS\112-09\65893.TXT BRIAN
27

ket share for U.S. hay in the Chinese market. So they really compliment one another and build to be effective tools. 

The CHAIRMAN. My last question would be that we have heard, 

and I assume you have from the industry sector, if you will, about 

some of these proposed changes to MAP and FMD. Is it your intention and have you implemented some of those suggestions and 

ideas from industry participants to modify your original announcement and what you are trying to do? 

Mr. BREWER. Sir, the short answer to your question is, no, nothing has been implemented. What we want to do is: MAP and FMD 

are longstanding programs with a very strong participation by our 

cooperators. What we want to do—but we are always looking for 

ways to improve the programs, for ways to do things better. So 

what we wanted to do was we wanted to start a conversation about 

how can we improve MAP. We have had that conversation. It is an 

ongoing conversation with our stakeholders and our cooperators. 

We have also come up here on the Hill and briefed and gotten engaged in consultations with Congressional staff on this. So it is an 

ongoing conversation. Any possible changes or improvements to the 

program will not be implemented without consultation with our 

partners and with Congress. 

The CHAIRMAN. With that and my time having expired, I recognize the Ranking Member, the gentleman from California, Mr. 

Costa. 

Mr. COSTA. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Brewer, as we are obviously looking at trying to get our nation’s fiscal house in order and budget constraints and reducing our 

deficit, we know that that is going to require cutting back on a host 

of programs. So as we look at the reauthorization of the 2012 Farm 

Bill, which I would argue has actually cost less than was anticipated when we authorized it in 2008, and we should be mindful of 

that, that we look where we get the best bang for our buck, especially in the Title I Programs. 

The Market Access Program that I am familiar with, and that 

you deal with, has been effective, but it has also been criticized as 

a corporate welfare for large for-profit corporations like McDonald’s, Mars, et cetera.

What would be your response to that statement? 

Mr. BREWER. Congressman, thank you for your question. Sir, my 

short answer to that statement would be that it is simply incorrect. 

By statute large corporations are prohibited from participating in 

the MAP Program. 

Mr. COSTA. Good. Let us underline that. By definition they are 

prohibited. 

Mr. BREWER. They are prohibited by statute to participate in this 

program, in the MAP Program. This program is directly targeted 

to nonprofit trade organizations, to agricultural cooperatives, to our 

nonprofit state regional trade groups, what we call our SRTGs. 

Those SRTGs, they represent not only multiple states but also hundreds of small and medium-size businesses. 

Mr. COSTA. And it does exactly what it defines. It attempts to try 

to provide greater market access to markets that otherwise we 

have difficulty in penetrating. 

Mr. BREWER. That is correct, Congressman. 

28

Mr. COSTA. Let me go on because there are some other areas, 

and my time is limited. The Technical Assistance for Specialty 

Crop Program, obviously, is big in California with over 300 specialty crops. But, other parts of the South, West, the Northeast, in 

Michigan, other places, the 2008 Farm Bill authorized funding for 

the Technical Assistance for Specialty Crops at $4 million for Fiscal 

Year 2008, increasing it incrementally up to $9 million in 2011 and 

2012. 

How has this increased funding been allocated? 

Mr. BREWER. Sir, the TASC funds are being obligated now. We 

are getting applications in, and they are being obligated. If I can 

step back and just give a little sense of what TASC is because it 

hits on what you have touched on in your statement. 

Mr. COSTA. Quickly because I have other questions. 

Mr. BREWER. I am sorry. The TASC funds are being obligated 

now to our applicants. 

Mr. COSTA. Okay, and for which countries and for which commodities do you think this is most effective in breaking down the 

technical effort for issues with restrictions for animal restrictions 

or food restrictions? Give some examples. 

Mr. BREWER. Yes. We have had a number of successes with regard to TASC. Just a couple of examples are TASC funds have 

been used to develop a pre-clearance program for table grapes, 

helping us export into the Australian market. We have also used 

TASC funds or I should say our cooperator, the U.S. Potato Board, 

has used TASC funds to establish a U.S. Thailand seed potato protocol to address SPS and TBT, which stands for Technical Barriers 

to Trade, concerns. That led to the Thai market opening up for 

seed potatoes, and that market is valued between $3 and $5 million. 

Mr. COSTA. Let me go finally, as my time is almost gone, the 

President in his State of the Union talked about streamlining government and focusing on the Executive Branch. Can you provide 

any recommendations that you folks are looking at within your 

area in which reorganization will take place under the Executive 

Branch effort, areas that involve foreign agricultural services with 

the U.S. trade agencies? 

Mr. BREWER. Well, sir, regarding trade agency consolidation, we 

certainly support the President’s effort to find efficiencies in government, and USDA is engaged in that effort. Secretary Vilsack 

has met with OMB on this subject. My agency has participated in 

Administration discussions on consolidation as well. 

There are, however, unique challenges in trade of ag products 

that require technical expertise that is not normally housed in a 

trade agency. One thing that has really helped FAS succeed in our 

mission has been our long history of contact and connection with 

the ag community as well as the way we are able to work very collaboratively with other elements in USDA. I am referring to APHIS 

and FSIS. 

We want to make sure that is preserved in any future discussions. 

Mr. COSTA. Well, Mr. Chairman, thank you. My time has expired, but I would also suggest that you take the input, if you are 

not, and I suspect you are, from the private sector as you look at 

29

this reorganization and greater efficiencies because I know they 

work hand in hand with you and as we try to gain greater access 

to foreign markets, and their suggestions on reorganization could 

be helpful. 

Mr. BREWER. Certainly are doing that. 

Mr. COSTA. Yes, sir. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. The chair would recognize the gentlelady from 

Missouri, Congresswoman Hartzler. 

Mrs. HARTZLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. 

Brewer. 

I just wanted to ask some questions about the foreign service officers. What is the unique role of the foreign service officers stationed in like U.S. embassies? 

Mr. BREWER. Yes, Congresswoman, thank you for your question. 

Our foreign service officers, our ag attache ́s stationed around the 

world are really our first responders when it comes to trade disruptions. They are on the ground, they are providing us with information that is just extremely valuable for us back here in Washington. 

A couple of examples that would show the value that they bring 

in both Taiwan and South Korea. There was cherry deliveries that 

were held up over pesticide residue concerns by the Koreans and 

the Taiwanese. Those deliveries were worth $7 million. Our folks 

were able to get on the ground to work with their counterparts in 

those governments and get those things released, get those cherries 

released, that product released before they perished. That was a 

highly-perishable commodity, and by us being on the ground, being 

there, having the connections that we had we were able to get 

those released. 

So that is just one example of how being that first responder is 

very valuable. 

Mrs. HARTZLER. Sure. How many countries are they in right 

now? How many embassies have foreign——

Mr. BREWER. We have about 99 offices around the world, but we 

cover, again, as I said in my statement, about 156 different countries. 

Mrs. HARTZLER. Great. How would they help overcome trade barriers that are out there? 

Mr. BREWER. Well, again, it would be their presence on the 

ground, their contacts with their counterparts within the embassies, their ability to help us monitor and enforce agreements that 

we have or have made, be it MOUs right up to various other trade 

agreements. So just being there on the ground, knowledgeable of 

the culture and the country that they are working in, as well as 

knowledgeable about the priorities here in the United States and 

what we have in our agricultural strategy. They are also on the 

ground to work closely with our partners, the cooperators have, 

many of them have foreign offices so there is that contact there. So 

just that communication, collaboration, access is something that 

really helps us. 

Mrs. HARTZLER. There is a problem as you probably are aware 

of counterfeiting of U.S. brands, and I just wondered what is FAS 

doing to coordinate with the EMP and participants to protect U.S. 

brands and prevent counterfeiting. 

30

Mr. BREWER. Congresswoman, I don’t have a very good answer 

for you for that specific issue, but I will ask my staff. I can have 

my staff get back to you to talk specifically about counterfeiting. 

Mrs. HARTZLER. Okay, and the last part of my question, I guess, 

just real practical. I have just been here 3 months, a farm background, and my husband and I farmed, been involved with that. 

But say there is a company in the 4th district of Missouri that 

wants to promote their product, an ag-related product overseas, 

there may be a small business, they have an idea. They want to 

export it. 

What services could your department provide that would be helpful to them that I could connect them with? 

Mr. BREWER. Yes, ma’am. We have a host of services that could 

certainly help anyone interested in exporting overseas. In fact, that 

is one of the major goals of the National Export Initiative to increase the participation of that. I think first thing probably would 

be to visit our website. We certainly have contact names there, Office of Trade Programs can certainly be of great help. Again, 

through the NEI process we are working and communicating, collaborating with the Commerce Department, with the Small Business Administration, we are building a system of where if someone 

goes to those entities there is a system of getting them to us, and 

vice versa, if there is something that is more appropriate for those 

agencies, we can get it to them. 

So there is really a system being built up, but I would start with 

our website would be a place to go. 

Mrs. HARTZLER. Very good. Thank you very much. Thank you, 

Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. The chair would recognize the gentleman from 

North Carolina, Mr. Kissell. 

Mr. KISSELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr. 

Brewer, for being with us today. You had talked about in your 

opening remarks the significant increases in exports in ag products. Very briefly, where would you attribute the export coming 

from any particular segments of agriculture, and what forces overseas have led to this, and just kind of how did we get to those increases? 

Mr. BREWER. Congressman, our top markets are China, Canada, 

Mexico, Japan, and the EU. So a lot of the interest from those 

countries are really driving a lot of the exports we have. Our top 

markets, I would say our top commodities are soybeans, cotton, 

wheat, and I am not putting them in any particular order, but 

fruits and vegetables, et cetera. There is a great deal of product 

going to China, and that is driving a lot of our successful numbers, 

as well as our success through these programs of knocking down 

barriers. 

I mentioned the cherry issue in South Korea and Taiwan. We 

also have been working with the Chinese. They had some concerns 

about the quality and safety of our soybeans. We were able to go 

through our FMD Program, we were able to work an MOU with 

them that addressed their concerns and kept that flow of soybeans 

going to China. 

I think the combination of just a greater demand from our major 

markets as well as the efficient way that we are administering 

31

these programs to knock down trade barriers to open up those markets is really the combination that is leading us to those high numbers. 

Mr. KISSELL. Is there any concern as we see rising food prices 

and high food prices, is there any concern that we are creating a 

demand that will drive food prices up, and then do we have the 

supply to be able to fulfill what we are trying to do overseas? And 

we are glad to have the good income from our farmers, but, this 

supply and demand thing keeps coming back, too. Is there any concern that we will be generating demands that will outstrip supply 

and therefore create problems on the pricing side? 

Mr. BREWER. Well, sir, in my agency one of the program areas 

that we have is our Office of Global Analysis. They do a lot of market analysis, a lot of crop production analysis, looking at those 

issues. We don’t believe that our success in exporting our products 

is leading to any kind of price volatility of any kind, but we are 

working closely with other elements with USDA. I should say we 

are following the work of other elements within USDA, particularly 

the Economic Research Service and the World Board that are following these kinds of issues and keeping us abreast of whether 

something is going on that we are not aware of. 

But at this point we don’t believe that our exports are causing 

any problems with that. 

Mr. KISSELL. And in the area of government efficiencies, I know 

in talking with some folks in Commerce, they also are stressing exports as many people are. Do you find opportunity to work with 

other departments and programs they might have, and do you 

know what programs we might have that there might be duplications of? 

Mr. BREWER. Sir, through the National Export Initiative as I 

mentioned a couple of times before, we are really working with, the 

Administration has really reinvigorated the President’s Export 

Council, the Export Cabinet, a lot of communication, a lot of collaboration going on to make sure that the various parts of the Federal Government involved in this area are working together, are 

communicating, and really complimenting one another’s missions 

and goals. 

That has been extremely helpful in not only helping us target 

particular markets to get in those markets, opening them up, and 

get U.S. products in there, but also to streamline and become more 

effective as a government, as a Federal Government in this area 

of trade and exports. 

I think we are doing much more complimenting of our services 

to move forward than duplication. 

Mr. KISSELL. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, and the chair would recognize the 

gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Scott. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Brewer, thank you so 

much for joining us, and some of my questions revolve around what 

Mr. Kissell had to ask, but just let me go back to the statement. 

The President’s National Export Initiative goal is to double all U.S. 

exports within 5 years, and I certainly think that that is a good 

goal for our country and hope that we are able to reach that, and 

32

I know that you and this Committee will be a big part of that if 

we are able to reach it. 

My district in Georgia, the 8th district, has a wide variety of 

crops. We are always looking for opportunities to improve the markets and expand our ability to trade internationally, and I know 

you talked about the current countries with Mr. Kissell’s question 

and current crops. 

My question is future countries and future crops. What future 

countries do you see the U.S. increasing trade with over the next 

couple of years? 

Mr. BREWER. Congressman, that is a very good question. Let me 

step back and give you one of the activities that we do within the 

agency to help us, again, streamline and stay efficient and stay at 

a very effective working level is something we call the global review. We look, annually, at our footprint around the world, where 

we have offices, and adjust as necessary, just make sure that we 

are where the best places are for us to be in order to promote agricultural exports. 

As I said, that is an annual review. I would say that some of the 

places that have been identified where we provided the budget is 

there to do so, but we are constantly adjusting. Where we see ourselves being, we just recently have opened offices in Africa, Ethiopia, we think Angola is a place that has growth potential, certainly doing more activity in the southern region of Africa, south 

Africa, Kenya. In Asia we are looking at more offices in China because, again, they are our largest competitors to expanding there. 

We are constantly looking through that global review and through 

the work of our attache ́s on the ground trying to find where is that 

next country. But right now I would say Angola and China, et 

cetera, would probably be it. 

Mr. SCOTT. I mean, again, getting back to the goal of doubling 

our exports within 5 years, the Columbia Free Trade Agreement, 

the Panama Free Trade Agreement, the South Korea Free Trade 

Agreement, I am someone who personally believes all of those 

things would help us achieve what the President says the goal is, 

and yet he has not done anything with those agreements yet. 

So what can we do together to help get these trade agreements 

passed so that we can start working towards that path of doubling 

those exports? 

Mr. BREWER. Congressman, let me start off by saying just flat 

out, the three FTAs are good for agriculture. All three of them are 

very good for agriculture. The trade agreements knock down tariffs 

to U.S. products that help us get in those markets quickly. For example, in South Korea with the passage of that agreement that will 

give us greater access to Korea’s $1 trillion market economy and 

their 50 million consumers, or almost 50 million consumers. 

The International Trade Commission, the ITC, believes that once 

it is fully implemented it will add $2 to $4 billion to U.S. exports. 

So it is a very solid commitment. The Korea Agreement is ready 

to go. I am sure it will be forwarded to Congress soon. We have 

made progress on the Columbia Agreement. There is a path forward for that, so I am fully confident that will come up, so they 

are on their way. 

33

Mr. SCOTT. I apologize for interrupting you, but I am about to 

run out of time. I want to express, and so I apologize for the interruption, but I want to express one concern I have, and certainly we 

want to get rid of duplicative agencies and things along those lines. 

But, I do want to make sure that when it comes to agriculture and 

agriculture trade, it is handled through the USDA and not any 

other agency, and Mr. Chairman, with that statement, again, Mr. 

Brewer, I apologize for the interruption of your answer, but I am 

out of time. 

Mr. BREWER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

Mr. BREWER. No problem. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Scott. The chair recognizes the 

gentleman from Texas, Mr. Cuellar. 

Mr. CUELLAR. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for holding 

this meeting. 

Mr. Brewer, can you explain what impact the dispute that we 

have had with the Republic of Mexico with the trucking issue has 

had? As you know, the trucking issue was part of NAFTA, and the 

U.S. didn’t keep up its part of its deal. The Mexicans then came 

back and added tariffs to hit the ag folks. I certainly want to thank 

President Obama, President Caldero ́n and Secretary LaHood for 

making this—hopefully at least to have an agreement and concept, 

but could you tell us what sort of impact that had, I mean, on our 

exports? We are exporting to Mexico. I know there is a lot of ag 

products that we export, and what sort of impact does it have on 

us because of the tariffs, and hopefully if the agreement goes 

through, they will eliminate the tariffs and we go back to the way 

it was. 

Mr. BREWER. Congressman, thank you. Regarding the trucking 

issue, it certainly did have an impact on agricultural exports. As 

you know, in response to the refusal of the Mexican trucks coming 

in, they had a series of tariffs on a variety of products. A number 

of them were agricultural products. It did reduce the amount of 

product that we had going in there. We did lose some market 

share, but as you said in your comments, we are very excited and 

happy about the agreement, and it is moving forward. 

Secretary LaHood and the Transportation Department is certainly point on that along with the State Department, and they appear to be moving quickly to try and resolve this issue and with 

its resolution that will allow us to recover what we had due to the 

problems caused by the increase in tariffs on agriculture. 

Mr. CUELLAR. All right. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. The gentleman from Pennsylvania, 

Mr. Thompson. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. Brewer, thank you so much for being here, 

for your testimony, and your service. As you mentioned before and 

it has been mentioned a number of times about the President’s National Export Initiative goal of doubling U.S. exports within the 

next 5 years, my first question is in terms of agriculture, looking 

at agriculture, is that within reach for us within the next 5 years? 

Is it going to be relying basically on what we have been doing, or 

are there new things, new initiatives that we are going to have to 

34

roll out, either through Congress or certainly administratively to 

achieve that goal? 

Mr. BREWER. Congressman, just to step back quickly to really 

make sure we are on the point of the National Export Initiative, 

it really is national. It is across the Federal Government. It is not 

just ag but all sectors to increase that, and that doubling is for everybody. So we certainly play a role in that. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Oh, I understand that, but I joined the Agriculture Committee for farmers, so I am here to talk about ag. 

Mr. BREWER. Exactly right. We believe that it is an achievable 

goal. We certainly at USDA and within FAS through these export 

promotion programs as well as the other tools available to us, certainly are doing all we can do on our part in order to achieve that 

goal. Within the President’s 2012 budget there is a request for $20 

million to assist us in our NEI efforts. What we would like to do 

with that money is monitoring and enforcement of international 

trade agreements, making sure that our partners do what they 

have agreed to do with regard to market access, et cetera. We believe that those extra funds will go a long way in helping us do 

that monitoring and enforcement. Other goals of those funds are to 

increase the trade missions that we have, to streamline our certification process, making it more electronic, and just to speed up the 

process of where our farmers and ranchers can export, and certainly to increase the assistance that we provide to help them get 

in there. 

Again, what we are looking at is really to help our small and medium-sized businesses to get into the export business, get into 

those foreign markets. If they are in one market, get them into 

two. Just really pushing that goal of being an exporter, and those 

NEI funds will help us achieve that goal. 

Mr. THOMPSON. All right. When you are involved in those discussions in that work, how sensitive is the issue of cost, production 

costs, which is obviously the cost that our agriculture community 

experiences, the cost that is only placed on those commodities to be 

sold in trade. 

Do you find that that is sensitive? How sensitive is that? How 

often does that issue come up? 

Mr. BREWER. Congressman, let me make sure I understand your 

question. You are talking about the cost for the farmer and rancher 

to produce what he is——

Mr. THOMPSON. Which ultimately results in the cost, the price 

placed for sale of that commodity, and do you find situations where 

we are just not competitive in terms of the cost for commodities 

that we are trying to place in trade to other countries? 

Mr. BREWER. For what we are doing, sir, where we focus on is 

really the exporting of those commodities and how can we assist in 

getting that commodity out into a foreign market. We are hopeful 

that we get it at the right price, we give these opportunities to sell 

more, that it will assist in allowing the farmer and the rancher to 

be able to afford what inputs he needs in order to produce that. 

So we are really focused on assisting the farmer and rancher in 

the way of giving them access to new consumers and new markets 

in order to sell his product, in order to thrive in his business. 

35

Mr. THOMPSON. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Brewer. Thank you, 

Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. The chair will recognize the gentlelady from Alabama, Ms. Sewell. 

Ms. SEWELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Brewer, on February 18 the USDA released recommendations for implementation of a law requiring tough new inspection 

and regulation of catfish all across America. The proposed rule 

transfers the inspection and regulation of catfish from the FDA to 

the USDA. 

My particular district is the second largest American producer of 

catfish in Alabama, where I reside, and the proposed regulation is 

a step in the right direction. I know that we are currently in a 120 

day comment period and just really wanted to know what kind of 

comments, to the best of your knowledge, that we have been receiving and where do you see that direction of that regulation going? 

Mr. BREWER. Congresswoman, thank you. As you are well aware 

of, FSIS is really the agency of jurisdiction over that, so I really 

don’t have a lot of comment on that. As you rightly say, we are in 

the public comment period. That period ends late June, around 

June 24, and all aspects of the rule are being looked at and commented on during this period, right up to and including the definition of catfish. So that process is ongoing. 

I will take this opportunity, though, to let you know that the 

Catfish Institute is a cooperator, is participating in our MAP Program, and they have been using our export promotion programs to 

market American catfish into Canada, and they are having some 

success in that. So I want to bring that in and just let you know 

that on that end that we are having some progress there. 

But FSIS is really the lead on the rule. 

Ms. SEWELL. Right. Do you foresee that the regulation once the 

comment period is over would come out more immediately, or 

where do you see your agency in assisting the catfish industry generally? 

Mr. BREWER. I cannot comment on the impact of the rule or any 

of that, I wouldn’t have that, but we certainly are prepared to use 

our export promotion programs that we administer to assist getting 

catfish into foreign markets, wherever it might be a popular place 

for it. 

So we stand ready to handle that on that trade aspect to really 

help in any way we can to get those products into foreign markets. 

Ms. SEWELL. Great. Thank you, Mr. Brewer. 

Mr. BREWER. Yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Stutzman. 

Mr. STUTZMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr. 

Brewer, for being here. 

Could you comment a little bit about China. They continue buying corn from us. Is that going to continue to grow? I know they 

are obviously a growing economy, and how does that affect our 

markets here? 

And then also if you could comment a little bit about how ethanol 

plays into our production as far as competitiveness with exports to 

China and other countries. 

36

Mr. BREWER. With regard to your question about China, as I 

mentioned earlier, China is certainly our number one market for 

our products. It is a market that we are having some success in. 

Clearly it is our number one market, but it is one that requires 

constant monitoring, constant activity, and to make sure that market stays open. 

Again, it goes back to the value of our foreign service, of our ag 

attache ́s being on the ground, opening up opportunities for U.S. 

products to be sold. I think one example of the success we are having there is that recently a supermarket chain in China has been 

for the second year in a row and we hope for a third year is having 

a focus on, I guess, an American food show. They are highlighting 

and really bringing attention to American products to their customers, and they have been able to introduce over 60 new products 

and during that show we have had thousands of dollars in sales. 

So not only is it bringing income, it is really starting to build the 

American brand among the Chinese consumer. So we are having a 

lot of success there, but as I said, constant vigilance is what we 

need. 

Your question of ethanol, I am sorry, you wanted to know how 

is it helping or——

Mr. STUTZMAN. Yes. How is that playing with your ability to sell 

our commodities to foreign markets and the competition with ethanol domestically? Commodity prices are higher now than they 

have been in a long, long time, maybe ever. Are you finding it difficult to have the ability to have resources or the commodities here 

to go to China and other countries and say we have the products. 

Is ethanol biting into that at all? 

Mr. BREWER. Congressman, I am not aware of that. As I mentioned to Congressman Kissell, we are enjoying record sales 

abroad, sales of our commodities. We are certainly monitoring the 

market, but we are not finding any kinds of shortages of access to 

that, but I don’t have that kind of information at my fingertips, but 

I would certainly be happy to take that back and find——

Mr. STUTZMAN. Sure. One other question, and you kind of alluded to it, is could you describe the background and the training 

that USDA requires for your FSOs and their effectiveness in promoting U.S. exports? Are we bringing buyers to the United States 

and giving them reasons to buy from us? What is that relationship, 

and how does that relationship work? 

Mr. BREWER. Yes, sir. We are certainly through our MAP Program, we are doing a number of trade missions; both having American companies and sellers going over to that country to describe 

their products. We are also having trade missions coming here. 

In fact, one of them that is probably of interest to Mr. Scott, Congressman Scott, is a store we have been doing with one of our participants, the American Peanut Council. The Peanut Council in 

2007, used MAP funds to go over to Japan, and while they were 

there to meet with the group of Japanese importers and other buyers about peanuts. In part through that, sales went up, increased 

by 75 percent of American peanuts into Japan. In 2010, we did the 

reverse. MAP funds were used to bring Japanese buyers to Georgia 

to look at the product and look at how peanuts are grown, and that 

37

effort led to now where we have captured about 35 percent of the 

Japanese market in peanuts. 

So that is just one example of how, yes, we are going over there, 

and we are bringing folks here in our efforts to increase U.S. exports. 

Mr. STUTZMAN. Okay. Thank you. I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. That concludes the first set of questions. If any of my colleagues have anymore questions, I would be 

more than happy to allow it, but I think that is probably an appropriate place to thank Administrator Mr. Brewer for your testimony, 

your responses to our questions, and your service to our agricultural sector and our country. Thank you very much. 

Mr. BREWER. Thank you very much. 

The CHAIRMAN. With the understanding that we could have votes 

in the relatively near future, I think we ought to proceed with the 

next panel, second panel, with their understanding that we could 

be interrupted during the course of either your testimony or your 

responses to our questions. I hope that you will be able to be patient with us in meeting our other obligations. 

Gentlemen, ladies, I want to introduce four of the witnesses and 

then I would like to defer to the Ranking Member for a specific introduction of a fifth member with whom he has, through his state 

and otherwise, a personal relationship and communication. 

I just want to introduce each of you and then go back to the beginning. Our first witness is Mr. Michael Wootton, Senior Vice 

President Corporate Relations, Sunkist Growers, on behalf of the 

National Council of Farmer Cooperatives and the Coalition to Promote U.S. Agricultural Exports, Mr. Stephen Censky, Chief Executive Officer, American Soybean Association, St. Louis, Missouri, 

Mr. Thad Lively, Senior Vice President, Trade Access, U.S. Meat 

Export Federation, Denver, Colorado, Mr. Tim Hamilton, Executive 

Director of the Food Export Association of the Midwest USA. 

And the Ranking Member would like to, and I would appreciate 

his introducing the fifth member of the panel. 

Mr. COSTA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Nikolich is from 

Reedley, California. He has been with Gerawan Farms for 25 years. 

He started his career as an agronomist and pest management specialist, and he has worked his way up as Vice President of Technical Operations for Gerawan Farms, a family farming operation 

that has been in the Valley for many, many years, and who we are 

very proud of. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, and we appreciate all of you being 

here. 

I would recognize first the gentleman from the Sunkist Growers, 

Mr. Wootton. We all have your written statements and since we 

are kind of at a limitation here, it would probably be a good idea 

if each of you kind of summarize that and let us get onto our questions. But proceed as you wish. 

Mr. Wootton. 

38

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL J. WOOTTON, SENIOR VICE

PRESIDENT CORPORATE RELATIONS, SUNKIST GROWERS; 

CHAIRMAN, COALITION TO PROMOTE U.S. AGRICULTURAL 

EXPORTS, SHERMAN OAKS, CA; ON BEHALF OF NATIONAL 

COUNCIL OF FARMER COOPERATIVES 

Mr. WOOTTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to be here today and thank Mr. Costa and the Members of 

the Subcommittee for giving us this opportunity. 

Sunkist is a 118 year old agricultural marketing cooperative 

owned by and governed by about 4,000 citrus growers in California 

and Arizona, and the average size of their production acreage is 

about 40 acres. So they are truly small family farmers. 

Sunkist markets the citrus that they produce both in the domestic and international marketplace under the Sunkist brand. Farmer 

cooperatives across the country offer farmers an opportunity to 

market their products and compete in a global marketplace. Cooperatives through collective resources enable individual farmers 

who do not have the resources or the production volume individually to access and successfully compete in foreign markets with 

their U.S.-grown products. 

The farm revenues and economic wellbeing of the agriculture sector depend heavily on exports, which accounts for 25 percent of 

U.S. farm cash receipts, provide jobs for over one million Americans, and make a positive contribution to our nation’s overall trade 

balance. Market Access Program is an essential part of that effort. 

As important as agriculture is to our balance of trade, unfair 

trade competition from foreign sources remains a growing problem 

in foreign outlets and in our domestic market. The inroads made 

by Spanish Clementine Mandarins in our domestic market are illustrative. Spanish producers assisted by EU Trade Promotion Initiatives and other forms of subsidy assistance began shipping large 

volumes of mandarins into the U.S. marketplace several years ago. 

The scope and cost of their marketing activities has been notable. 

Spanish exporters, which are producing citrus in a high cost, developed nation, and incurring significant transport costs to move their 

products thousands of miles to U.S. grocery stores, have been able 

to deliver to U.S. consumers a product with extremely expensive 

packaging and at competitive price against California citrus produced near Mr. Costa’s district. 

These Spanish producers are not so competitive that they can 

defy the rules and laws of economics. Their main advantage is very 

clear. They are receiving extensive EU and national support to sell 

and promote their product abroad. According to the EU’s most recent WTO notification, the EU is providing over $1.4 billion in marketing and advertising activities to support its agricultural sector. 

Just last month the European Parliament passed a resolution urging an increased commitment and resources to this end. The EU 

and its 27 nation-members are clearly persuaded that governmentsupported export promotion is essential to growing exports in the 

agricultural arena. 

The same thing can be said of China, and FAS has a report 

dated last November that outlines the intervention and heavy involvement of the Chinese Government in subsidizing its agricultural sectors. 

39

Now, American agricultural producers are confident that their 

ability to compete around the world based on quality, and in our 

case at Sunkist an asset of brand identity, but we cannot compete 

against foreign farmers standing on the shoulders of their national 

treasuries. 

Our export programs have long recognized this reality. The predecessor to the MAP Program, the Targeted Export Assistance Program was a bipartisan program signed into law in 1985, by President Ronald Reagan and expressly designed to counter unfair foreign activities. Unfair foreign trading practices have grown over 

time, and MAP has been the only means for many in American agriculture to counter the harm. The program is efficiently administered on a cost-share basis with farmers and other participants required to contribute up to 100 percent match of their own resources, and the Administrator outlined the eligibility requirements. By any measure MAP and other USDA trade promotion 

programs have been tremendously successful and cost effective in 

maintaining expanding U.S. agricultural exports, creating American jobs, and strengthening farm income. 

And this is documented also in a USDA-commissioned audit by 

IHS Global Insight, which was commenced during the Bush Administration, completed during the Obama Administration, and 

shows that investment providing a 35 to 1 return. 

The report also showed that from 2002 to 2009, export gains associated with programs increased average annual farm receipts by 

$4.4 billion, net cash farm income by $11⁄2 billion. It further confirmed that due to the higher prices from increased demand 

abroad, U.S. domestic farm support payments were reduced by 

roughly $54 million annually, thus reducing the net cost of these 

U.S. programs. 

The examples of Sunkist MAP success stories, my written testimony, and others like them from a host of other cooperators are 

tangible benefits of sound public policy. They have been made possible because Congress in every Administration since Ronald 

Reagan have recognized that global agriculture is heavily impacted 

by foreign governments. 

American producers cannot succeed without a reasonable partnership with our government, and to give up this supportive partnership is to cede the playing field to foreign producers and the 

governments that stand behind them. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wootton follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MICHAEL J. WOOTTON, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT

CORPORATE RELATIONS, SUNKIST GROWERS; CHAIRMAN, COALITION TO PROMOTE

U.S. AGRICULTURAL EXPORTS, SHERMAN OAKS, CA; ON BEHALF OF NATIONAL

COUNCIL OF FARMER COOPERATIVES

Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Costa, and Members of the Subcommittee. My name is Michael Wootton. I am Senior Vice President of Sunkist 

Growers, and am pleased also to be testifying as Chairman of the Coalition to Promote U.S. Agricultural Exports and on behalf of the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives. 

On behalf of Sunkist’s grower-members, and the more than two million farmers 

and ranchers who belong to farmer cooperatives, I appreciate this opportunity to 

submit testimony regarding our vital export promotion programs, and respectfully 

request that this statement be made part of the official hearing record. 

40

Sunkist Growers is a 118 year old agricultural marketing cooperative owned and 

governed by 4,000 citrus growers in California and Arizona. The average size of 

their family farms is approximately forty acres. Their Sunkist cooperative markets 

their citrus both in the U.S. market and internationally under the Sunkist brand. 

Farmer cooperatives across the country offer their farmers an opportunity to market their products and compete in a global marketplace. Cooperatives, through collective resources, enable individual farmers, who do not have the resources or production volume individually to access and successfully compete in foreign markets 

with their U.S.-grown products. Earnings from these overseas sales then flow back 

to the farmer-owners in the form of increased patronage dividends and help lower 

our U.S. trade deficit. 

The Coalition to Promote U.S. Agricultural Exports is a coalition of over 150 organizations, representing U.S. farmers and ranchers, fishermen and forest product 

producers, cooperatives, small businesses, regional trade organizations, and the 

State Departments of Agriculture (see attached). The Coalition believes the United 

States must continue policies and programs that enable American agriculture to 

compete effectively in a global marketplace still dominated by unfair foreign subsidies and access restrictions. 

The farm revenues and economic well-being of our agricultural sector depend 

heavily on exports, which account for over 25% of U.S. farm cash receipts, provide 

jobs for over one million Americans, and make a positive contribution to our nation’s 

overall trade balance. The support provided by USDA’s Market Access Program 

(MAP) is essential to our export health. 

As important as agriculture is to our balance of trade, unfair foreign competition 

remains a growing problem in foreign outlets and here at home. In the fruit and 

vegetable sector, for example, which includes a large number of MAP cooperators, 

foreign competitors have made extraordinary in-roads over the past decade. As a result of open U.S. trade policies, half of all fresh fruits and vegetables consumed in 

the U.S. are now of foreign origin. 

The in-roads made by Spanish Clementine Mandarins in our domestic market are 

illustrative. Spanish producers, assisted by EU trade promotion initiatives and other 

forms of subsidy assistance, began shipping large volumes of Mandarins into the 

U.S. market in recent years. Their in-store promotions and attractive packaging enabled them to seize a high-value share of the U.S. market and reduce returns for 

American producers. 

The scope and cost of their marketing activities has been alarming. Spanish exporters, which are producing citrus in a high-cost, developed nation and incurring 

significant transport costs to move their product thousands of miles into U.S. grocery stores, have been able to deliver to U.S. consumers a product with extremely 

expensive packaging at a competitive price against California citrus produced near 

Mr. Costa’s district. 

These Spanish producers are not so competitive that they can defy the laws of 

economics. Their main advantage is clear: they are receiving extensive EU and national support to sell and promote their product abroad. According to the EU’s most 

recent WTO notification, the EU is providing over $1.4 billion in marketing and advertising activities to support its agricultural sector. Just last month, the EU Parliament passed a resolution urging the EU to commit even greater resources to promote agricultural exports. The EU and its 27 nations are clearly persuaded that 

government-supported export promotion is essential to growing exports in the agricultural arena. 

Other foreign competitors are funding large promotional activities as well. USDA’s 

Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) issued a report late last year on China’s programs in this area. That report states that in China, ‘‘industry associations, most 

with government support, are active in most areas, and their presence is often 

critical to success.’’ The report observes that in cases of runaway export success stories out of China, the critical factor is usually a strong, government-supported program. 

American agricultural producers, including our 4,000 growers, are confident of 

their ability to compete around the world based on quality and, in our case, the 

asset of brand identity. But we cannot compete against foreign farmers standing on 

the broad shoulders of their national treasury. 

Our export programs have long recognized this reality. The predecessor of the 

Market Access Program, the Targeted Export Assistance (TEA) Program, was a bipartisan program signed into law in 1985 by President Ronald Reagan and expressly designed to counter unfair foreign activities. As unfair foreign trading practices have grown over time, MAP has been the only means for many in American 

agriculture to counteract the harm. 

41

As a so-called ‘‘green box program,’’ MAP is among the few tools specifically allowed under WTO rules to help American farmers and exporters remain competitive 

in a global marketplace still dominated by unfair foreign competition. Though 

MAP’s authorization has been as high as $325 million annually over the long life 

of this program, its current funding level of $200 million annually was authorized 

nearly 10 years ago under the 2002 Farm Bill and saw no increase under the current bill. The program is efficiently administered on a cost-share basis, with farmers 

and other participants required to contribute up to 100 percent match of their own 

resources. Those participants can only include small businesses, nonprofit U.S. agricultural trade associations, nonprofit U.S. agricultural cooperatives and nonprofit 

state-regional trade groups. 

By any measure, MAP and other USDA trade promotion programs have been tremendously successful and cost-effective in maintaining and expanding U.S. agricultural exports, creating American jobs, and strengthening farm income. A recent 

independent USDA-commissioned audit of MAP and other USDA trade programs 

prepared by IHS Global Insight, Inc. (the world’s largest economic analysis and forecasting firm) confirmed that MAP uses government funds to supplement, not replace, industry funds. According to the report, the increase in market development 

spending by government and industry from 2002–2009 enlarged U.S. market share 

and increased the annual value of U.S. agricultural exports by $6.1 billion. This 

equates to $35 in agricultural export gains for every additional $1 expended, a 35 

to 1 return on investment.

The report also showed that from 2002–2009, export gains associated with the 

programs increased average annual farm cash receipts by $4.4 billion and net cash 

farm income by $1.5 billion. It further confirmed that, due to higher prices from increased demand abroad, U.S. domestic farm support payments were reduced by 

roughly $54 million annually, thus reducing the net cost of these U.S. programs. 

As noted, because, non-trade distorting market promotions are permitted under 

WTO rules, and are not expected to be subject to disciplines under any final Doha 

agreement, market promotion is increasingly seen as a centerpiece of a winning agricultural strategy in developed nations and developing ones alike. A great many 

competitor countries have announced ambitious trade goals and are shaping export 

strategies based on strong government promotion programs. European countries are 

expanding their promotional activities in Asia, Latin America, and Eastern Europe. 

Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Brazil have budgeted significant investments 

in export promotion expenditures worldwide in recent years. And, even as market 

promotion programs expand into global markets, a significant portion of foreign 

market promotion money will continue to be carried out here in the United States 

at our local supermarkets. 

As an approved USDA Cooperator organization, Sunkist Growers has seen firsthand how MAP can make a large difference in counteracting the effects of this pervasive foreign assistance. With matching monies, our MAP-funded activities increased lemon sales in Japan by 13.4% over the life of the campaign, increased 

lemon sales in China and Hong Kong in 2009 by 195% compared to 2008, and increased orange sales in Singapore by 127% over the life of the campaign. 

These examples, and others like them from a host of other cooperators, are the 

tangible benefits of sound public policy. They have been made possible because Congress and every Administration since Ronald Reagan’s have recognized that global 

agriculture is heavily impacted by foreign governments. American producers cannot 

succeed without a reasonable partnership with our government. To give up this supportive partnership is to cede the playing field to foreign producers and the governments that stand behind them. 

If American agriculture is to remain globally competitive, the Coalition to Promote U.S. Agricultural Exports believes the Administration and Congress should ensure the strength of MAP and the other valuable export programs as part of a robust trade component in the new farm bill and encourage their aggressive utilization. We further believe the current system of funding under these FAS programs, 

based upon the competitive merit of each applicant proposal, works well and should 

not be changed. We do not believe that targeting funds to specific sectors is necessary or prudent. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today before the Committee and 

for your leadership on U.S. agriculture exports. We ask that the Market Access Program and our other vital FAS programs be sustained to help ensure the competitiveness of American producers in the increasingly competitive global marketplace. 

42

ATTACHMENT

Coalition To Promote U.S. Agricultural Exports Membership 

2011

Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute National Barley Growers Association 

American Cotton Exporters Association National Cattlemen’s Beef Association 

American Cotton Shippers Association National Chicken Council 

American Farm Bureau Federation National Confectioners Association 

American Feed Industry Association National Corn Growers Association 

American Forest and Paper Association National Cotton Council 

American Hardwood Export Council National Council of Farmer Cooperatives 

American Meat Institute National Farmers Union 

American Peanut Council National Grange 

American Quarter Horse Association National Grape Cooperative Association, Inc. 

American Seed Trade Association National Milk Producers Federation 

American Sheep Industry Association National Oilseed Processors Association 

American Soybean Association National Pork Producers Council 

Atlantic Seaboard Wine Association National Potato Council 

Blue Diamond Growers National Renderers Association 

Calcot, Ltd. National Sorghum Producers 

California Agricultural Export Council National Sunflower Association 

California Apple Commission National Turkey Federation 

California Asparagus Commission Nebraska Wheat Board 

California Association of Wheat Growers Nebraska Wheat Growers Association 

California Association of Winegrape Growers New York Wine & Grape Foundation 

California Blueberry Commission NORPAC Foods, Inc. 

California Canning Peach Association North American Millers’ Association 

California Cherry Export Association North Dakota Grain Growers Association 

California Cling Peach Board North Dakota Wheat Commission 

California Dried Plum Board Northwest Cherry Growers 

California Farm Bureau Federation Northwest Horticultural Council 

California Fig Advisory Board Northwest Wine Coalition 

California Grape and Tree Fruit League Ocean Spray Cranberries, Inc. 

California Kiwifruit Commission Oklahoma Wheat Growers Association 

California Pear Advisory Board Oregon Wheat Commission 

California Pear Growers Oregon Wheat Growers League 

California Pistachio Export Council Peace River Valley Citrus Growers Association 

California Plum Marketing Board Pet Food Institute 

California Strawberry Commission Produce Marketing Association 

California Table Grape Commission Shelf-Stable Food Processors Association 

California Tomato Farmers Softwood Export Council 

California Walnut Commission South Dakota Wheat Commission 

California Wheat Commission Southern Forest Products Association 

Cal Pure Pistachio, Inc. Southern U.S. Trade Association 

Cherry Marketing Institute Sunkist Growers 

CoBank Sun Maid Growers of California 

Colorado Association of Wheat Growers Sunsweet Growers, Inc. 

Colorado Wheat Administrative Committee Texas Cattle Feeders Association 

Dairy Farmers of America Texas Wheat Producers Association 

Dairylea Cooperative, Inc. Texas Wheat Producers Board 

Distilled Spirits Council of the United States The Catfish Institute 

Florida Citrus Commission The Farm Credit Council 

Florida Citrus Mutual The Popcorn Institute 

Florida Citrus Packers Association Tree Top, Inc. 

Florida Citrus Processors Association United Durum Growers AssociationUnited Egg Association 

Florida Department of Citrus United Egg Producers 

Florida Fruit & Vegetable Association United Fresh Produce Association 

Florida Peanut Producers Association USA Dry Pea and Lentil Council 

Food Export Association of the Midwest USA USA Poultry & Egg Export Council 

Food Export USA—Northeast USA Rice Federation 

Georgia Poultry Federation U.S. Apple Association 

Ginseng Board of Wisconsin U.S. Apple Export Council 

Gulf Citrus Growers Association U.S. Dairy Export Council 

Hardwood Federation U.S. Dry Bean Council 

Highlands County Citrus Growers Association, Inc. U.S. Grains Council 

Hop Growers of America, Inc. U.S. Hides, Skins & Leather Association 

Idaho Wheat Commission U.S. Livestock Genetics Export, Inc. 

Indian River Citrus League U.S. Meat Export Federation 

Kansas Association of Wheat Growers U.S. Rice Producers Association 

Kansas Livestock Association U.S. Wheat Associates, Inc. 

Kansas Wheat Commission Utah Department of Agriculture 

Kentucky Distillers’ Association Valley Fig Growers 

Land O’Lakes, Inc. Virginia Wineries Association 

Leather Industries of America Washington Apple Commission 

Maryland Grain Producers Association Washington State Fruit Commission 

Minnesota Association of Wheat Growers Washington Wheat Commission 

Minnesota Wheat Research and Promotion Council Welch Foods Inc., A Cooperative 

Mohair Council of America Western Growers Association 

Montana Grain Growers Association Western Pistachio Association 

Montana Wheat and Barley Committee Western U.S. Agricultural Trade Association 

National Association of State Departments of WineAmerica (The National Association of American Wineries) 

Agriculture Winegrape Growers of America 

National Association of Wheat Growers Wine Institute 

43

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Censky. 

STATEMENT OF STEPHEN L. CENSKY, CHIEF EXECUTIVE 

OFFICER, AMERICAN SOYBEAN ASSOCIATION, ST. LOUIS, MO 

Mr. CENSKY. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the 

Subcommittee. I am Stephen Censky. I am CEO of the American 

Soybean Association. ASA is the national, not-for-profit organization that represents U.S. soybean farmers on policy and international issues. We commend you for holding this hearing today to 

review the effectiveness of export promotion programs. 

Soybeans and soybean products are our country’s number one ag export commodity. Last year we exported a record-setting $23 billion in soybeans, soybean oil, and soybean meal. This impressive 

export growth would not have been possible without the unique 

government-industry partnership that characterizes the Foreign 

Market Development Cooperator Program and the Market Access 

Program administered by the Foreign Agricultural Service. 

These programs have been tremendously successful and extremely cost effective in helping to expand exports of U.S. soybeans 

as well as other agriculture commodities including corn, wheat, 

rice, cotton, livestock, meat products, dairy, forest products, peanuts, seafood, and a host of horticultural products. I have been 

asked by the Subcommittee to focus on the role of the Foreign Market Development Cooperator Program in expanding exports. 

The FMD Program is a public-private program dedicated to the 

long-term development of foreign agriculture markets. Under FMD 

U.S. Government funding is leveraged by the contributions made 

by U.S. farmers, ranchers, and agriculture industry to carry out 

targeted market development activities. The FMD Program provides cost-share assistance to establish an on-the-ground presence 

in markets to identify new markets and to address foreign import 

constraints. 

Under the FMD Program private sector organizations such as 

ASA, U.S. Wheat Associates, U.S. Grains Council, USA Rice Federation, Cotton Council International, American Peanut Council, 

and other cooperators work with U.S. producers, exporters, and 

others to develop strategic marketing plans that detail market 

characteristics, the constraints limiting U.S. exports in those markets, and proposed activities to overcome those constraints. 

These marketing plans are submitted to FAS as a unified export 

strategy for each commodity. FAS then reviews all submitted unified export strategies and makes FMD funding allocations based on 

criteria published in the FMD regulations that include cost-share 

contributions by U.S. industry, capabilities and experience of the 

cooperator in successfully developing markets and increasing exports, importance of the commodity to overall U.S. trade, and anticipated increases in U.S. exports resulting from the FMD funding. 

ASA became a cooperator back in 1956, when we opened the Foreign Market Development Program in Tokyo, Japan. At that time 

Japan was only importing small quantities of U.S. soybeans. Over 

the years ASA worked with feedmillers and the Japanese swine, 

dairy, and poultry industries to educate and demonstrate the value 

of putting high-quality soybean meal made from U.S. soybeans in 

feed rations and to link Japanese importers with U.S. exporters, 

44

both on the soybean as well on the food-grade soybean sides. Today 

Japan is a top market for U.S. soybean, surpassed only by China 

and Mexico. U.S. soybean exports to Japan are valued at $1.3 billion last year. 

I would like to quickly make four key points about the FMD Cooperator Program. First is that the FMD is cost effective. According 

to the Global Insight Study that has been referenced here, the 

multi-year impact of market development expenditures is equal to 

$35 in export gains for each dollar spent. 

Number two, the FMD Program increases the U.S. exports of 

U.S. agriculture products. I have highlighted Japan and could mention many more as similar success stories could be told by market 

development cooperators representing U.S. corn, rice, wheat, cotton, livestock, forestry, horticultural product, and other commodities. 

Number three, the FMD Program helps U.S. agriculture overcome the effects of foreign trade practices. Mr. Wootton has mentioned that the EU has announced that they are going to be spending over a billion dollars on promoting agriculture exports, and that 

it plans to increase this amount on an annual basis. By comparison, the U.S. will spend approximately $34.5 million on FMD and 

MAP this year. 

And number four, the FMD Program helps keep U.S. agriculture 

commodities strong and in turn support over one million jobs. 

These jobs are on the farm and the ranch, in the forest, on the 

water, as well as in banking, transportation, finance, processing, 

and other industries. 

In conclusion, the Foreign Market Development Cooperator Program and the Market Access Program are among the few tools that 

American agriculture and farmers have to remain competitive in 

the global marketplace. They support over one million jobs, not 

only on the farms and ranches but also in the processing and export-related industries. ASA hopes that Congress will maintain 

funding for agriculture export promotion programs and for the Foreign Agricultural Service of USDA. 

I would be happy to answer any questions the Subcommittee 

may have. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Censky follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF STEPHEN L. CENSKY, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, 

AMERICAN SOYBEAN ASSOCIATION, ST. LOUIS, MO 

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee. I am Stephen 

Censky, and I serve as Chief Executive Officer of the American Soybean Association 

(ASA). ASA is the national, not-for-profit organization that represents U.S. soybean 

farmers on policy and international issues. We appreciate the opportunity to appear 

before you today, and commend you for holding this hearing to review export promotion programs and their effectiveness in expanding exports of U.S. agricultural 

products. 

Soybeans and soybean products are our country’s number one export commodity. 

Last year, we exported a record-setting $23 billion in soybeans, soybean oil and soybean meal. This amount represents 1⁄5 of all U.S. agricultural exports and over 50 

percent of U.S. soybean production. 

This impressive export growth could not have been achieved without the unique 

government-industry partnership that characterizes the market development and 

export promotion programs administered by the Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) 

and carried out by organizations representing U.S. farmers and ranchers. By any 

measure, the Foreign Market Development ‘‘Cooperator’’ Program and the Market 

45

Access Program have been tremendously successful and extremely cost-effective in 

helping expand U.S. exports of soybeans and other agricultural commodities such 

as corn, wheat, rice, cotton, livestock and meat products, dairy, forest products, peanuts, seafood, and a host of horticultural products. I have been asked by the Subcommittee to concentrate my testimony on the Foreign Market Development Cooperator Program and its role in expanding U.S. agricultural exports. 

The Foreign Market Development (Cooperator) Program 

The Foreign Market Development (FMD) Program is a public-private partnership 

program dedicated to long term market development of foreign markets for U.S. agricultural exports. Under the FMD program, U.S. Government funding is leveraged 

with contributions by U.S. farmers, ranchers, and agri-industry to carry out targeted market development activities. Activities implemented under the FMD program are most often focused on opening and maintaining foreign markets, while 

working on long-term changes to key constraints affecting a market to allow for increased U.S. exports. It allows U.S. market development organizations that represent U.S. farmers and ranchers (referred to as ‘‘Cooperators’’ due to the cooperative private-public partnership they have with FAS) to establish an on-ground country or regional presence, identify new markets and address long-term foreign import 

constraints and export growth opportunities. The FMD Program provides cost-share 

assistance to allow market development cooperators to:

1. Conduct market research. This includes: investigating the volume of in-country product to meet demand in a market; the suitability/viability of in-country 

product; the compatibility of U.S. product; variables to market success; importance of exports from other competing countries; history of product domestically/

internationally; competitiveness of U.S. product; infrastructure capabilities to 

import U.S. products; and access to importers/processors/retailers.

2. Carry out market analysis. This includes: determining the size of a current 

market; potential size of the market in the future if structural changes were 

made to allow for an improved market environment; the opportunity for U.S. 

exports and likely U.S. share; impediments to trade; political situation, demographics, and economic stability of the market; long-term viability of in-country 

demand; and government accessibility and regulatory environment for market 

access.

3. Implement long-term market development activities following up on favorable 

market research and analysis. Implementation of market development activities 

constitutes the bulk of funding and activities under the FMD program. Market 

development activities include: supporting the long-term presence of people and 

office facilities in key markets to develop sound and expanding trade relationships; providing technical assistance to buyers and users of the product; capacity building and education through seminars and one-on-one work that ensure 

market growth for participating commodities and products; facilitating trade 

teams to U.S. to see U.S. production standards and supply infrastructure; facilitating U.S. farmer, rancher, and industry visits to current and prospective markets to develop import networks and product specifications to meet local market 

needs.

Under the FMD program, private sector Cooperators such as ASA, U.S. Wheat Associates, U.S. Grains Council, USA Rice Federation, Cotton Council International, 

National Peanut Council and others commodity Cooperators work with U.S. producers, exporters, and others in the industry to develop strategic marketing plans 

detailing market characteristics, constraints limiting U.S. exports, and proposed activities to overcome those constraints. These detailed marketing plans are submitted 

to FAS as a ‘‘Unified Export Strategy’’ for the U.S. commodity in question. FAS reviews all submitted Unified Export Strategies and makes FMD funding allocations 

based on criteria included in FMD program regulations that include cost-share contributions by U.S. industry, capabilities and experience of the Cooperator in successfully developing markets and increasing U.S. exports, importance of the commodity 

in overall U.S. agricultural trade, and anticipated increases in U.S. exports resulting from the FMD funding. 

Examples of How ASA Has Utilized FMD Program Cost-Share Funding to 

Develop Foreign Markets for U.S. Soybeans and Products 

ASA became the first USDA-funded Cooperator under the FMD program in 1956, 

when we opened a foreign market development program in Tokyo, Japan. At that 

time, Japan was importing only small quantities U.S. soybeans, and the Japanese 

had expressed concerns about the quality of U.S. soybeans. During our first year, 

ASA participated in a series of trade fairs and partnered with a coalition of JapaVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:20 Jun 07, 2011 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 I:\DOCS\112-09\65893.TXT BRIAN
46

nese business interests in conducting market development activities. Our in-country 

staff worked closely with Japanese industry leaders at all stages, from buyer to retailer, as well as with university and research technicians, and the technical and 

popular news media. 

Japan proved to be an ideal country to begin export promotion, becoming our largest foreign market in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. Over the years ASA worked with: 

feedmillers and the Japanese swine, dairy, and poultry industries to educate and 

demonstrate the value of putting high-quality soybean meal made from U.S. soybeans in feed rations; Japanese soybean processors and importers to develop close 

and outstanding trade relations; Japanese processors to increase the quality and demand for soybean oil made from U.S. soybeans, both in the human utilization market as well as in the industrial and printing ink markets; and Japanese tofu, natto, 

and miso industries to demonstrate the quality of U.S. food grade soybeans and to 

link Japanese importers with U.S. exporters. Our office in Tokyo continues to service this critical market today, and Japan remains a top market for U.S. soybean 

products, surpassed only by China and Mexico. U.S. exports of soybeans to Japan 

today are valued at $1.3 billion. 

ASA went on to open other foreign offices and to conduct market development activities in other markets. From regional and country offices located in strategic 

areas, ASA International Marketing staff and consultants today continue to implement market development activities with customers around the world that are increasing demand for U.S. soybeans and soy products. 

But while Japan represents our first success story, China is perhaps our most impressive. ASA opened an office in Beijing in 1982. At that time China did not have 

a vertically-integrated animal feed industry, and livestock production lacked health 

and nutritional standards. China has the largest swine herd on the planet, but 

much of it was backyard-based and did not include soybean meal in diets. Similarly, 

while China produces more fresh water aquaculture fish than the rest of the world 

combined, 20 years ago none of the fish feed included soybean meal. Through a long 

term and comprehensive program of demonstrating the value of soy-based feeds, 

ASA helped build demand for soybeans to the level China imports today. Since 1995, 

while feed use in China grew 140 percent, soybean meal used in animal feed rose 

an astronomical 839 percent. And we’ve seen the amount of soybean meal used in 

aquaculture feeds grow from zero just 20 years ago to 7 million metric tons this 

year. The value of U.S. soybean exports to China has grown 26-fold, from $414 million in 1996 to over $11 billion in 2010. 

Many other successes can be cited to demonstrate the value of the FMD program 

in expanding U.S. agricultural exports around the world. FMD-supported programs 

began in Turkey in the 1980s. At that time, U.S. soy exports were valued at only 

$4 million annually and the United States was only a minor supplier. With support 

from the FMD program, ASA and the soybean industry began working with Turkey’s poultry and feedmilling industries to educate them on the value of using soybean meal in rations. Later, as local investors and companies developed plans to 

build soybean processing plants in Turkey, ASA provided technical assistance and 

developed close trade relations, educating these buyers on how to buy from the 

United States, how to hedge price risk, and how to produce high-quality products 

from U.S. soybeans. Poultry producers now enjoy the benefit of better quality feed, 

U.S. equipment manufacturers have seen their sales to Turkey grow, and the U.S. 

soybean industry continues to grow soybean exports. Today, Turkey’s imports of 

U.S. soybeans, meal and oil have reached $310 million, with the U.S. being the dominant supplier. Fueled by economic growth and a rising standard of living, Turkey’s 

consumption of poultry and vegetable oil continues to grow today. 

Mexico is another example. With technical assistance and education and nutrition 

seminars sponsored by ASA International Marketing, Mexico has gained an appreciation of the benefits of soy for human consumption. Mexico’s retailers now sell millions of liters of soy-fruit beverages, among other products. And U.S. soy exports 

have grown over the years from virtually zero in the late 1970’s to the current value 

of $2.1 billion. 

The FMD program provides cost-share assistance to ASA to implement activities 

that have set the stage for the growth of U.S. soybean exports. With the assistance 

of the FMD program, we have launched a large number of feeding and demonstration trials in key international markets. Through capacity building activities such 

as training and on-farm consultations to promote improved swine and poultry practices, as well as education on the benefits of soy protein for human consumption, 

the FMD program has been extremely successful in helping us develop product specifications and the supply networks to build demand for our products and meet local 

market needs. More recently, we have engaged in market development activities to 

promote the use of soy for industrial products such soy ink, solvents, lubricants, and 

47

engine oils, to name just a few. All the market development work in which we have 

engaged over the years has been made possible with the FMD funds. 

These FMD funds have been leveraged with contributions by U.S. soybean farmers themselves through the soybean checkoff, as well as with contributions by U.S. 

exporters. Today, the FMD funds ASA receives are leveraged with soybean farmer 

and industry funding on a 2-to-1 basis—meaning that for every $1 invested in market development by the FMD program, U.S. soybean farmers and industry are investing $2 to more than match FMD funding. 

Four Important Points about the FMD ‘‘Cooperator’’ Program 

1. FMD is cost-effective. Funds are awarded on a competitive basis via a comprehensive industry strategy evaluated by FAS using a formula that takes into consideration export potential, experience with managing export programs as well as 

industry contributions. The process helps ensure that U.S. taxpayer’s money is 

being invested in the agricultural sector and organization with the highest chance 

of success. Every organization that participates in the FMD program must contribute its industry’s resources to the program. Thus, U.S. Government expenditures 

actually leverage more resources for foreign market development than American agriculture would be able to accomplish with only private sector funds. 

From 2002–2009, the last year for which figures are available, the multi-year impact of the increase in market development expenditures by both industry and government is equal to $35 in agricultural export gains for each dollar spent. In addition, total economic gain to the U.S. economy is estimated to be an annual average 

of $1.1 billion from increased market development activity. Further, government 

spending for domestic supports (loan deficiency payments and countercyclical payments) fell about $0.30 for every $1 spent on FMD. 

2. The FMD program increases export of U.S. agricultural products. I’ve highlighted just a few examples of how U.S. soybean farmers have successfully utilized 

cost-share assistance provided under the FMD program to develop long-term markets and increase exports. Similar success stories can be told by the U.S. corn, rice, 

wheat, cotton, livestock, forestry, and horticultural product industries. 

3. The FMD program helps U.S. agriculture overcome the effects of foreign trade 

practices. U.S. agricultural exports often face subsidized or otherwise unfair competition from foreign products. U.S. agricultural organizations utilize FMD resources 

to combat the multitude of challenges in the international marketplace. As just one 

example of the competition we face, the European Union recently announced that 

it will spend the equivalent of $1.0 billion this year on promoting agricultural exports, and that it plans to increase this amount on an annual basis. By comparison, 

the U.S. will spend approximately $248 million on FMD and MAP this year. 

4. The FMD program helps keep U.S. agricultural exports strong, which in turn 

supports almost one million American jobs. These jobs were on the farm, ranch, in 

the forest and on the water, as well as in banking, transportation, processing and 

other related industries. Every state and local economy in the U.S. has jobs that 

are dependent upon healthy exports of U.S. agricultural products. 

Conclusion 

The Foreign Market Development ‘‘Cooperator’’ program and Market Access Program (MAP) are among the few tools that help American agriculture and American 

farmers remain competitive in the global marketplace. They are considered to be 

non-trade distorting or ‘‘Green Box’’ programs under World Trade Organization 

(WTO) rules. 

These cost-share market development and export promotion programs help keep 

U.S. agricultural exports strong, which in turn support over one million American 

jobs. These jobs are on U.S. farm and ranches, but also are in processing, transportation, financing, and other related industries. Every state and local economy in the 

U.S. has jobs that are dependent upon healthy exports of U.S. agricultural products. 

Agricultural exports have for years been the strongest positive contributor to our 

nation’s balance of trade. Increasing exports is a significant tool to improve the lives 

of America’s farmers and ranchers while creating jobs, improving our balance of 

trade, expanding the farm economy and larger U.S. economy, and increasing receipts to the Treasury. The FMD and MAP programs have been critically important 

to this success. ASA hopes this hearing will strengthen the resolve of Congress to 

maintain current support for agricultural export promotion programs, as well as 

strong support for the Foreign Agricultural Service of USDA. I would be happy to 

answer any questions the Subcommittee may have.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Mr. Lively. 

48

STATEMENT OF R. THAD LIVELY, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, 

TRADE ACCESS, U.S. MEAT EXPORT FEDERATION, DENVER, CO 

Mr. LIVELY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning. My name 

is Thad Lively. I am the Senior Vice President for Trade Access at 

the U.S. Meat Export Federation, and I am very pleased to be here 

today to talk to the Committee about USDA’s Emerging Markets 

Program. 

Before I offer my comments on the EMP Program, however, I 

would like to first say a few words about the organization I work 

for, the U.S. Meat Export Federation. USMEF is a nonprofit trade 

association based in Denver, Colorado. Our mission to increase the 

profitability of the U.S. beef, pork, and lamb industries by expanding exports and maximizing the value of U.S. red meat production. 

USMEF has been a participant in USDA’s export programs since 

it was founded in 1976. In recent years we have been the second 

largest recipient of funding under the Market Access Program in 

addition to participating in the Foreign Market Development and 

EMP Programs. The financial support we receive from the USDA 

is matched by producers and meat exporting companies, most of 

which are small or medium-sized enterprises that actively participate in USMEF programs. 

The combination of strong government and industry support for 

USMEF and its programs has provided the foundation for what has 

been a very effective public-private partnership in export market 

development for the red meat industry. Last year the value of U.S. 

beef, pork, and lamb exports reached $8.9 billion. This represented 

a 32 percent year-over-year increase for beef and a ten percent increase for pork. Growing economies in countries like China, Russia, 

Mexico, and the Philippines are fueling demand for beef and pork 

exports, and this is making an important contribution to the continued health and profitability of the red meat industry. 

Of course, the continued growth in exports assumes that the 

United States will have unfettered access to export markets as they 

develop. Unfortunately, as we all know, to an increasing degree, 

this is not the case as countries find new and creative ways to protect their domestic agriculture industries through non-tariff trade 

barriers that limit imports. 

To cite just one example, we estimate that the United States is 

losing roughly $1.4 billion in beef exports annually due to the nonscience-based BSE-related import restrictions that are in place in 

Japan, China, Mexico, and Hong Kong. 

Finding effective ways of addressing these kinds of trade barriers 

is the single biggest challenge facing U.S. beef and pork industries 

as they pursue their goal of increasing exports. 

A critical component of the red meat industry’s strategy for 

eliminating these non-science-based market access barriers has 

been the kinds of activities that are funded by USDA’s Emerging 

Markets Program. The EMP Program provides funding for technical assistance activities that support U.S. exports and assists the 

food and rural business systems of emerging markets. 

Emerging markets are defined as countries that are taking steps 

towards becoming market-oriented economies and which have the 

potential to become viable and significant export markets for U.S. 

49

agriculture. Examples of emerging markets include countries as diverse as China, Indonesia, Mexico, and Russia. 

EMP funding is allocated by FAS on an annual basis but also in 

response to time-sensitive technical barriers to trade and marketing opportunities as they arise. The ability to respond quickly 

to developments in foreign markets makes the EMP Program especially well suited to the needs of the agricultural export industry. 

EMP funds have been used to support a wide variety of technical 

assistance projects, but USMEF experience with the program has 

been centered on projects that address market access constraints. 

We have been able to benefit especially from FAS’s ability to quickly review and approve our requests for support to engage importing 

countries on a number of rapidly-emerging market access issues, 

most of which have stemmed from non-science-based trade barriers. 

Perhaps the most notable exception of USMEF’s use of EMP 

funds is associated with our response to the BSE crisis in the beef 

industry when countries around the world closed their markets to 

U.S. beef. Fundamental to convincing countries to reopen their 

markets has been our ability to restore the confidence of foreign 

governments in the safety of U.S. beef. 

As part of this effort USMEF has been able to draw in EMP 

funds to bring animal and public health officials from a number of 

countries, including Mexico, Russia, the Philippines, and Egypt to 

the United States. During these visits we have worked closely with 

USDA to educate these decision makers in foreign governments on 

the science of BSE and the BSE risk mitigation measures that are 

in place in this country. The training the foreign officials have received on these EMP-sponsored trips has made a significant contribution to the decisions by many countries to relax and in some 

cases eliminate their BSE-related import restrictions. 

USMEF has also drawn——

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. You want to 

bring your comments to a close. 

Mr. LIVELY. Okay. Thank you very much, sir. I appreciate the 

time and look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lively follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF R. THAD LIVELY, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, TRADE ACCESS, 

U.S. MEAT EXPORT FEDERATION, DENVER, CO 

Good morning. My name is Thad Lively. I am the Senior Vice President for Trade 

Access at the U.S. Meat Export Federation, and I am very pleased to be here today 

to talk about USDA’s Emerging Markets Program (EMP). 

Before I offer my comments on the EMP program, I would like to say a few words 

about the organization I work for, the U.S. Meat Export Federation. USMEF is a 

nonprofit trade association based in Denver, Colorado. Our mission is to increase 

the profitability of the U.S. beef, pork, and lamb industries by expanding exports 

and maximizing the value of U.S. red meat production. We do this by conducting 

export market development and promotion programs for beef, pork, and lamb in 

over 60 countries around the world. We also work with the U.S. Government and 

our industry partners to eliminate trade barriers and open up new export opportunities through expanded market access. 

USMEF has been a participant in USDA’s export programs since it was founded 

in 1976. In recent years, we have been the second largest recipient of funding under 

the Market Access Program, in addition to participating in the Foreign Market Development and EMP programs. The financial support we receive from the USDA is 

matched by beef, pork, corn, and soybean producers, who invest in USMEF’s export 

50

programs through the checkoff. In addition, USMEF’s membership includes over 125 

meat exporting companies, most of which are small small-to-medium sized enterprises, which collectively provide significant financial support to USMEF and are active participants in many of our export programs. The combination of strong government and industry support for USMEF and its programs has provided the foundation for what has been a very effective public-private partnership in export market 

development for the red meat industry. Last year, the value of U.S. beef, pork, and lamb exports reached $8.9 billion. This 

represented a 32 percent year-over-year increase for beef and a ten percent increase 

for pork. Exports now account for 12 percent of U.S. beef production and close to 

25 percent of our annual output of pork. Growing economies in countries like China, 

Russia, Mexico, and the Philippines are fueling demand for red meat exports. Since 

consumption of beef and pork in the United States is forecast to experience very limited growth in the future, exports hold the key to the continued health and profitability of the red meat industry. 

Of course, this assumes that the United States will have unfettered access to export markets as they develop, and this increasingly is not the case, as countries find 

new, creative ways to protect their domestic industries through non-tariff trade barriers that limit beef and pork imports. To cite just one example, we estimate that 

the United States is losing roughly $1.4 billion in beef exports annually due to the 

non-science-based, BSE-related import requirements that are in place in Japan, 

China, Mexico, and Hong Kong. Finding effective ways of addressing these kinds of 

trade barriers is the single biggest challenge facing the U.S. beef and pork industries as they pursue their goal of increasing exports. 

A critically important component of the red meat industry’s strategy for eliminating non-science-based market access barriers has been the kinds of activities 

that are funded by USDA’s EMP program. The Emerging Markets Program provides 

funding to private and public organizations for technical assistance activities that 

improve access to emerging markets. Emerging markets are defined as countries 

that are taking steps toward becoming market-oriented economies and which have 

the potential to become viable and significant export markets for U.S. agriculture. 

Examples of emerging markets include countries as diverse as China, Malaysia, 

Mexico, and Russia. Consistent with the objectives of the program, EMP funds can 

only be used for projects that assist the food and rural business systems of the importing country in addition to supporting U.S. exports. 

The Emerging Markets Program is authorized by the farm Bill, and funding for the program from the Commodity Credit Corporation currently is set at $10 million 

a year. FAS administers the program according to regulations that specify reporting, 

evaluation, and compliance requirements and describe the rules for cost sharing. According to the cost sharing provisions, private sector recipients of EMP funds are 

required to commit their own resources to the proposed project in order to qualify 

for funding under the program. Through its administration of the EMP program 

FAS ensures that approved projects complement and support the objectives of the 

other export programs. 

EMP funding is allocated by FAS through three different channels. The first of 

these, the Central Fund, is the primary means of allocating EMP funds on an annual basis. In addition to the Central Fund, FAS has the capacity to quickly review 

and approve projects which specifically address time-sensitive technical barriers to 

trade and marketing opportunities as they arise. These channels are referred to as 

the Technical Issues Resolution Fund, or TIRF, and the Quick Response Marketing 

Fund. The ability to respond quickly to developments in foreign markets makes the 

EMP program especially well-suited to the needs of the agricultural export industry. 

EMP funds have been used to support a wide variety of technical assistance 

projects, including feasibility studies, market research, sectoral assessments, orientation visits, specialized training, and business workshops. USMEF’s experience 

with the program has been centered on projects that addressed market access constraints. We have been able to benefit especially from FAS’s ability to respond 

quickly to our requests for support under the TIRF fund. The availability of TIRF 

funding has permitted us to effectively engage importing countries on a number of 

rapidly emerging market access issues, most of which have stemmed from nonscience-based trade barriers. 

Perhaps the most notable example of USMEF’s use of EMP funds is associated 

with our response to the BSE crisis in the beef industry. After the United States 

reported its first case of BSE in late 2003, most countries around the world closed 

their markets to U.S. beef exports. It quickly became clear that as part of convincing 

countries to re-open their markets we would need to restore the confidence of foreign governments in the safety of U.S. beef. This has proven to be a much larger 

and more complex task than we imagined, but over the past 7 years, we have sucVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:20 Jun 07, 2011 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 I:\DOCS\112-09\65893.TXT BRIAN
51

ceeded in changing the thinking of officials in many countries about BSE and have 

made major inroads in turning around negative perceptions of U.S. beef. 

As part of this effort, USMEF has been able to draw on EMP funds to bring animal and public health officials from a number of countries, including Mexico, Russia, the Philippines, and China, to the United States. During these visits, we have 

worked closely with USDA to educate these decision-makers in foreign governments 

on the science of BSE and the BSE risk mitigation measures that are in place in 

this country. The training that foreign officials have received on these EMP-sponsored trips has made a significant contribution to the decisions by many countries 

to relax or eliminate their BSE-related import restrictions. Although as I have already noted, we still have work to do, the recovery of U.S. beef exports is well advanced, and the value of exports last year exceeded the pre-BSE level for the first 

time since 2003. 

In addition to using EMP funds to educate foreign officials on BSE, USMEF also 

has drawn on EMP funding to support similar activities that were designed to address market access barriers to pork exports. In several of these cases, USMEF has 

been able to work jointly with the USA Poultry and Egg Export Council to request 

EMP funds for projects that benefited the pork and poultry industries equally. For 

example, after Russia de-listed a number of pork and poultry slaughterhouses, the 

EMP program supported a visit to the United States by Russian veterinary officials 

in the fall of 2009. This trip was the first in a series of activities to educate Russian 

officials on U.S. pork and poultry production practices and explain the scientific 

basis for the many differences between U.S. and Russian meat hygiene and inspection requirements. Although Russia has not yet recognized the equivalence of the 

U.S. meat inspection system, the ongoing technical exchange with the Russian veterinary authorities has increased their confidence in the U.S. system and fostered 

a more open, constructive working relationship. 

In closing, I would like to thank you again for this opportunity to speak on behalf 

of USDA’s export programs and the EMP program in particular.

The CHAIRMAN. Sorry to have to do that. 

Mr. Hamilton. 

STATEMENT OF TIM HAMILTON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, FOOD 

EXPORT ASSOCIATION OF THE MIDWEST USA AND FOOD

EXPORT USA—NORTHEAST, CHICAGO, IL 

Mr. HAMILTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Tim 

Hamilton. I represent two of the four State Regional Trade Groups. 

These are associations of the State Departments of Agriculture, ten 

in the Northeast and 12 in the Midwest. Like our counterparts in 

the West and the South, we work with our member agencies strictly to focus on helping small companies export. We use funding from 

the Market Access Program in a variety of ways to conduct outreach to these companies, to provide training, technical support, 

and promotional funding to help them boost their overseas sales. 

At a time when Congress is looking for ways to reduce government 

funding, we believe we can provide you with some compelling reasons to maintain funding for these programs. 

Our foreign competition would like nothing better than to see the 

U.S. reduce its support for agricultural exports. If that happens, we 

will simply be handing these sales and the jobs that they support 

to our overseas competition. We can keep these jobs in the United 

States, or we can stop promoting our U.S. exports and watch these 

jobs go overseas. 

At the state regional trade groups we and our member states 

focus exclusively on small companies or SMEs. Many of these firms 

are family owned. Most of them are food processors that use agricultural commodities as inputs, which they turn into finished goods 

for export. Their products vary from snack foods to convenience 

foods, food ingredients, organic products, literally soup to nuts. 

52

These are companies that have been successful in the domestic 

market, often for generations, but in most cases they have never 

even considered the export market. 

Food and agricultural producers are challenged to find growth 

opportunities here at home, but at the same time emerging markets overseas offer huge growth potential for these companies if 

only they know about the opportunities and how to take advantage 

of them. 

Small firms are often reluctant at first, unsure of how they might 

be successful doing business in another language, another currency, another culture. We provide education and training to help 

them identify where their best markets might be and what hurdles 

they may need to overcome. 

Once a small company is ready to begin exporting, their first 

challenge is to find customers. We use MAP funds to prepare these 

small companies and to arrange meetings for them with qualified 

international buyers. This might be done in the U.S. as part of buying missions, it might be done overseas as part of a trade mission, 

at trade shows, or other ways. I have included several examples of 

this in my written testimony. 

Once companies have become established in the market, it isn’t 

enough just to have a customer. It is essential that they promote 

those products in these competitive markets. Fortunately we are 

able to offer some limited promotional support to these small companies through the MAP Program. 

In addition, the Quality Samples Program is a small program, 

only $2.5 million, which is intended to help U.S. agricultural trade 

organizations provide samples of their agricultural products to potential customers overseas. Since the QSP focuses more on commodity products which need to be further altered, the state regional trade groups focus more on finished goods. So we have had 

less opportunity to use the QSP Program. 

However, the QSP was used very successfully from 2001 to 2005 

by the western regional trade group. The small projects that they 

initiated under the QSP paved the way for several U.S. agricultural products by creating trade interests for seafood in Korea, tomatoes in Japan, and many varieties of fruits and nuts to Taiwan 

and China. And these products and producers have now graduated 

into larger scale MAP projects. 

Many of the jobs supported by agricultural exports are intrinsically U.S. jobs. They cannot be out-sourced overseas. They are tied 

to farm production here in the United States. The products are 

grown here, and they are processed here. If we maintain these 

overseas markets, then these jobs will continue to be held by Americans. If we lose these overseas markets, we risk losing these jobs 

to our competitors in China, Europe, and elsewhere. 

In our work with international customers we are constantly reminded of the extensive support that our competitor nation offer to 

our customers. Buyers enjoy lavish treatment made possible by 

support from European or other governments. You can attend just 

about any international trade show, and you will see spectacular 

national exhibits by China, by Europe, and by Chile or many of our 

competitors. Even small countries like Taiwan and the Netherlands 

53

have grand displays, often in stark contrast to the U.S. exhibit, 

which is modest and spare. 

For the U.S. economy to grow not just out of this recession but 

to continue to be competitive we need to produce products that the 

world wants to buy. U.S. food and agricultural products are recognized around the world for being safe, high quality, and innovative. 

This is a real opportunity for our country and for our economy. 

Every day we see small U.S. companies entering the global marketplace that they were previously unaware of or even fearful of, and 

we see these companies being successful, and we hear from them 

day after day, time after time that most of them never would have 

considered it had it not been for the support and incentive from the 

Market Access Program. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hamilton follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF TIM HAMILTON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, FOOD EXPORT

ASSOCIATION OF THE MIDWEST USA AND FOOD EXPORT USA—NORTHEAST, CHICAGO, IL 

Good morning, Mr. Chairman. My name is Tim Hamilton, and I am Executive Director of Food Export Association of the Midwest USA, known as Food Export—Midwest, and Food Export USA—Northeast, known as Food Export—Northeast. These 

are State Regional Trade Groups that offer services to help U.S. food and agricultural companies promote their products in foreign markets. We commend you, Mr. 

Chairman, and Members of the Committee, for holding this hearing to review our 

agricultural trade programs and wish to express our appreciation for this opportunity to share our views. 

The organizations I represent are associations of the 22 Midwestern and Northeastern state departments of agriculture. Like our counterparts in the Western and 

Southern regions, we work with our member agencies to increase the number of food 

and agricultural companies that export, as well as to help current exporters increase 

the volume and value of their export sales. We use funding from the Market Access 

Program (MAP) in a variety of ways to conduct outreach to these companies, to provide training, technical support and promotional funding to boost overseas sales by 

small U.S. producers and processors. 

We are also members of the Coalition to Promote U.S. Agricultural Exports—a 

broad-based coalition of over 150 organizations representing farmers and ranchers, 

fishermen and forest product producers, cooperatives, and small businesses. 

At a time when Congress is looking for ways to reduce government funding, we 

believe we can provide you compelling reasons to continue to fund programs, including the Market Access Program, that help maintain the ability of American agriculture to compete effectively in a highly competitive global marketplace in which 

many of our foreign competitors enjoy extensive financial support from their own 

governments. 

Our foreign competition would like nothing better than to see the U.S. reduce its 

support for agricultural exporters. That will enable them to more easily take over 

our market share. If we reduce support for the Market Access Program, we will 

watch our overseas market share erode. If that happens, we will be handing these 

sales, and the jobs they support, to our foreign competition. We can keep these jobs 

in the U.S., or we can stop promoting our U.S. exports and watch these jobs go overseas. Maintaining support for U.S. exports will help maintain and grow these jobs 

in the U.S. If we stop our investment, even for a short time, we will lose market 

share that will likely never be available to U.S. firms again. 

Food Export—Midwest and Northeast and our members focus almost exclusively 

on assisting small companies, also known as SMEs. Many of these firms are family 

owned. Most of them are food processors that use agricultural commodities as inputs, which they turn into finished goods for export. Their products vary from snack 

foods to convenience foods, pet food, beverages, gourmet products, food ingredients, 

natural and organic products, literally soup to nuts. What they all have in common 

is that they are made from U.S. agricultural products. 

These are companies that have been successful in the domestic market, often for 

generations, but in most cases they have never considered the export market. In 

many respects, our U.S. food market is a mature market. Food and agricultural proVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:20 Jun 07, 2011 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 I:\DOCS\112-09\65893.TXT BRIAN
54

ducers are challenged to find growth opportunities here at home. At the same time, 

emerging markets overseas offer tremendous growth potential for these U.S. producers, if only our companies know about these opportunities and how to take advantage of them. 

With our state department of agriculture partners, we work hard to identify such 

firms that are not currently exporting, and encourage them to consider going international. Even among the firms who are already seeking an international outlet for 

the products, they are uncertain how to proceed. Small firms are often reluctant at 

first, unsure of how they might be successful doing business in another language, 

another currency, another culture. We provide education and training to help them 

identify where their best markets might be, and what hurdles they might need to 

overcome. We look at what channels might be appropriate, and consider issues like 

labeling or packaging concerns, tariffs, prohibited ingredients or related challenges. 

Once a small company is ready to begin exporting, their first challenge is to find 

customers—usually importers, distributors or supermarket buyers. We use MAP 

funds to prepare U.S. companies, and to arrange meetings for them with qualified 

international buyers. This might be done in the U.S. as part of a Buyers Mission, 

often at a major trade show, where we make arrangements for a number of U.S. 

suppliers to meet with foreign buyers. It might be done overseas as part of a Trade 

Mission, where U.S. companies meet importers of products like theirs. We support 

more than two dozen such events each year. 

I’d like to offer a few examples of how MAP has benefited specific small firms. 

Dutch Farms is a small, fourth-generation family-owned firm located in Illinois. 

They participated in a mission in which we used MAP funds to sponsor key buyers 

to travel to the U.S. At the mission, Dutch Farms had the chance to meet a buyer 

from China, who ordered a test-shipment of 2,500 lbs. of Dutch Farms’ cheese. The 

firm expects this to grow to a monthly shipment of 40,000 pounds, valued at 

$100,000 per month. MAP funding made that possible. 

Churchies is a small specialty food company based in Malvern, Pennsylvania. 

Their participation in one of our trade missions to Canada introduced them to a 

broker that became their first international customer ever. 

Many international sales contacts are made at trade shows. Food Export—Midwest and Northeast support companies with advance preparation and technical support to make sure that these shows are successful for them. For example, we ensure 

that they are well prepared with appropriate pricing, and that their materials are 

translated if necessary. We make sure they have the necessary information about 

the market for their products, and what potential restrictions or competition they 

might face. We also work to make sure U.S. firms meet the right foreign customers 

at the show. By preparing them ahead of time, and offering some technical support 

at the show, we significantly improve their chances for success. 

Food Export—Northeast provided technical support and introductions to buyers at 

a trade show in Singapore for Sweet Street Desserts, a Pennsylvania based familyowned bakery products company. MAP funding provided the support they needed, 

resulting in the small company meeting more than 100 new buyers. Soon after, they 

shipped their first container of frozen bakery products to Singapore, and have begun 

discussions with potential customers in other Asian countries. Again, MAP funding 

made that possible. 

Another family owned company, this one from Missouri, Diamond Pet Foods used 

our support which was made possible with MAP funding, to participate at the 

Interzoo trade show. With that support, they identified customers from India, Australia, the UAE and Qatar, selling a half million dollars in pet food in the first year. 

These sales help Diamond Pet to remain a stable and growing employer in the small 

town of Meta, Missouri, as well as a good customer for the agricultural producers 

in the area. 

Once companies have become established in a market, it isn’t enough just to have 

a customer. Like in the U.S., it is essential that they promote those products in 

these competitive markets. Fortunately, we are able to offer some limited promotional support to help these SMEs get their products established. This support 

includes advertising, demonstrations, trade show costs, label modifications, etc.

These promotional services are made possible through MAP funding, and are provided on a cost-share basis, with companies investing at least 50% of the overall 

costs. This support is available to the companies for only a limited period of time 

in any given market: Once their product is established, then it is up to the company 

to fund its own expenses. 

This type of promotional support allowed Preston Farms, an Indiana popcorn supplier, to attend a major trade show in Shanghai, China that they would not have 

considered otherwise. Their exhibit led to the company’s first ever sale of popcorn 

in China. 

55

According to the company, new export sales have a direct impact on their local 

economy as the firm contracts additional popcorn acreage from more area farmers. 

The Cabot Creamery in Cabot, Vermont was able to use MAP-supported funding 

to translate the labels on their specialty cheeses from English to Spanish. This allowed the firm to begin exporting to Mexico for the first time. Because Cabot is a 

farmer-owned cooperative, these new export sales support their producer members 

located in Vermont and New York. MAP funding made this possible. 

During the past year, with support from MAP, Food Export—Midwest and Northeast have assisted 1,186 different firms. These companies reported that they were 

introduced to more than 18,000 potential new customers because of that support. 

Further, these firms went on to make their first sale in a new country 642 times. 

At least 51 of these companies made their first export sale ever this past year. They 

reported more than $1.2 billion in new export sales, and project nearly double that 

in additional sales over the next year. During 2010. these companies reported that 

they have specifically added 964 new jobs because of this program. Based on 

our data. we estimate that total new export sales by these firms support 

nearly 9,736 new or existing jobs.

While the MAP program clearly supports agricultural producers in rural areas, 

many companies that process these products for export are located in urban areas. 

For example: Bassetts Ice Cream calls itself the oldest ice cream company in 

America. The family-owned firm has been making ice cream in and around Philadelphia for 150 years, using milk and other ingredients from the local area. With promotional support made possible by the MAP program, the firm began selling their 

ice cream in China in 2008. Over the past three years, their sales have grown from 

$50,000 the first year to $800,000 in 2010. The firm expects this to nearly double, 

to $1.5 million, in 2011. According to the firm’s international sales team, without 

this support the firm likely would not have any sales in China right now. 

Many of the jobs that are supported by agricultural exports are intrinsically U.S. 

jobs. They cannot be out-sourced overseas. They are tied to farm production in the 

U.S. The products are grown here, and they are processed here. If we are able to 

maintain our overseas markets, then these jobs will be held by Americans. If we 

lose these overseas markets, then we risk losing these jobs to our competitors in 

China, Europe and elsewhere. 

In our work with international customers, we are constantly reminded of the extensive support that our competitor nations are able to offer our customers. Buyers 

enjoy lavish treatment made possible by support from European or other governments. You can attend just about any major international trade show, where you 

will see spectacular national exhibits by China, Europe, Chile and many of our other 

competitors. Even small countries like Taiwan and the Netherlands mount grand 

displays, in stark contrast to the U.S. exhibit that is usually modest and spare. 

The Market Access Program acts to encourage investment by the private sector. 

It gives incentives for companies to invest in new markets that they might not otherwise consider. The companies that participated in our programs invested an average of $2.67 for each dollar in public support. But the international market has additional risks, and the length of time it takes to become successful is longer than 

for domestic sales. These risks make exporting particularly challenging for small 

companies. That is why 94% of small U.S. companies do not currently export, and 

it is why they need encouragement, incentive and support to undertake the process. 

Small businesses support half of the jobs in the U.S. So encouraging these small 

companies to begin or expand exporting has a double benefit. It supports not only 

the farmers that produce the commodities. It also helps support the jobs in these 

companies that process these products into finished goods for export—both in rural 

and urban areas. USDA estimates that each billion dollars of exports supports 8,400 

jobs. 

It is really in our country’s long term best interest to continue efforts to build our 

exports. For the U.S. economy to grow, not just out of this recession, but to continue 

to be competitive, we need to produce products that the world wants to buy. U.S. 

food and agricultural products are recognized around the world for being safe, high 

quality and innovative. This is a real opportunity for our country. 

Every day, we see small U.S. companies entering that global marketplace that 

they were previously unaware of, or fearful of. And we see these companies being 

successful—and being innovative. Customizing their products and finding new customers in markets where they never thought they could. And we hear from them 

day after day, that most of them would not have done it without the support and 

incentive made possible from the MAP program. 

Our nation’s exports of food and agricultural products can continue to be a major 

success story in these otherwise difficult economic times. This is not the time to cut 

back on these efforts. It is a chance to take advantage of these global opportunities, 

56

and provide the support and incentive that companies, including small companies, 

need to pursue these markets, build sales, and put Americans to work. 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I encourage you to support efforts 

that continue to boost America’s food and agricultural exports, including MAP, that 

support our farmers, our small businesses, and the Americans that produce these 

outstanding products. 

Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, and the panel’s comments will conclude with Mr. Nikolich. 

STATEMENT OF GEORGE NIKOLICH, VICE PRESIDENT,

TECHNICAL OPERATIONS, GERAWAN FARMING, INC.; BOARD 

MEMBER, CALIFORNIA GRAPE & TREE FRUIT LEAGUE, 

REEDLEY, CA 

Mr. NIKOLICH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to speak to you today about market development programs. 

Today my focus will be on the Technical Assistance Specialty Crops 

program, TASC program, which our stone fruit industry has used 

to great effect to overcome many of the increasing challenges of 

technical trade barriers, and in the interest of time I will summarize my comments by providing a couple of examples, a couple of 

key examples for our stone fruit industry that has utilized the 

TASC funding for their success. 

Minimum residue limits are limits on chemical residues that our 

trading partners apply to products that we export. Foreign export 

regulations, they change quickly, and often their information is inconsistent from one source to another. We have used TASC funding 

to develop a quick and easy-to-access database to enhance uninterrupted trade and beyond stone fruit, TASC funding has also been 

used to support the development and maintenance of USDA/U.S. 

EPA MRL database for maximum chemical residue standards involving hundreds of specialty crops. 

Also in regards to maximum residue limits, one of the issues we 

are often faced with is that our industry does a wonderful job developing new chemistry, new crop protection materials that can be 

used which are safer, more effective, but if an MRL does not exist 

for those products, then we are unable to export. TASC funds have 

also supported industry representatives participating in discussions 

with U.S. and foreign regulatory agencies, markets such as Taiwan, Japan, and Canada, and it is critical in order to satisfy our 

needs for phytosanitary quarantine treatments to use the most effective materials possible. It is critical to have a continuing effective dialogue with those export markets so that we can be fast on 

our feet and make use of those superior products as soon as they 

are available to us. 

Also, a real success for our industry and for our company specifically has been the Mexico export program. California growers have 

been exporting stone fruit to Mexico under a U.S., Mexico bilateral 

work plan since 1994. Over 26 million boxes of California stone 

fruit have been shipped to Mexico since that time. 

The program involves both a fumigation or non-fumigation systems approach protocol. The systems approach protocol is one in 

which the Mexican Government has boots on the ground, they have 

supervisors overseeing their process. Costs have been close to $1⁄2

57

million over recent years, and TASC funds have served to defray 

some of the costs to industry for that. 

In addition, support through TASC funding has allowed our producers to work towards developing alternatives to chemical means 

for phytosanitary quarantine treatments. This is particularly important to our industry in that, for instance, methyl bromide is a 

very effective quarantine treatment, however, if you start with a 

good-eating piece of fruit, you treat it with methyl bromide, you 

wind up with a piece of fruit that is okay, and the difference between the market for a great tasting piece of fruit and an okay 

piece of fruit is virtually the same as having a strong market or 

no market at all. 

Without the assistance of TASC funds our trade organizations 

and industry could not have undertaken these types of activities, 

nor could we have shipped over 25 percent of our volume to our 16 

export partners. 

Thank you, again, for the opportunity to discuss these matters. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Nikolich follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF GEORGE NIKOLICH, VICE PRESIDENT, TECHNICAL

OPERATIONS, GERAWAN FARMING, INC.; BOARD MEMBER, CALIFORNIA GRAPE & 

TREE FRUIT LEAGUE, REEDLEY, CA 

Chairman Johnson and Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity 

to provide testimony in this hearing to review market promotion programs and their 

effectiveness on expanding exports of U.S. agricultural products. 

Technical trade barriers represent an important, increasing, and in many cases, 

complex challenge faced by U.S. exporters of agricultural products. USDA’s Technical Assistance for Specialty Crops (TASC) program is relied upon by U.S. organizations and businesses to provide funding for projects that address sanitary, 

phytosanitary, and technical barriers that prohibit or threaten the export of U.S. 

specialty crops. 

The following are examples of the positive impact TASC funding has had in supporting growers’, shippers’ and commodity representatives’ efforts to address continuing and new non-tariff barriers to trade:

• Foreign regulations change with speed and frequency. Additionally, information 

from one source sometimes contradicts information from other sources. TASC 

funding has assisted companies such as Gerawan Farming, Inc. and other stone 

fruit producers with the ability to obtain the market intelligence necessary for 

meeting import requirements. The stone fruit industry developed an export 

database with the support of TASC funds that identifies export requirements 

for growers, such as labeling documentation, phytosanitary requirements, tariffs 

and taxes, and sanitary requirements, such as chemical residue levels, for all 

major stone fruit export markets. Quick access to accurate export requirements 

through this database helps to facilitate uninterrupted trade. Beyond stone 

fruit, TASC funding has also been used to support the development and maintenance of the USDA/U.S. EPA MRL database that tracks and compares U.S. and 

international chemical residue standards on hundreds of specialty crops.

• A primary concern for U.S. growers and shippers when implementing integrated 

pest management programs is ensuring that any residues resulting from applications of crop protection materials meet both U.S. and international standards. 

This can be challenging as standards often differ by country and more international governments are insisting upon their own unique set of standards. As 

this trend continues to grow, fresh market commodities such as stone fruit face 

challenges in managing insect and disease control to meet export phytosanitary 

requirements while also observing the differing regulatory requirements for residues within foreign market destinations. U.S. growers consider maximum residue level (MRL) harmonization as one of the most important and growing 

issues within international agricultural trade. TASC funds have been utilized 

to allow industry representatives to participate in discussions between U.S. and 

foreign regulatory agencies from key export markets such as Taiwan, Japan and 

Canada. These discussions help the industry to develop a better understanding 

58

of food standards within foreign markets with the goal of ensuring that sciencebased MRLs continue to be established so that growers may freely export 

produce.

• California growers have been exporting stone fruit to Mexico under the U.S.-

Mexico bilateral work plan agreements since 1994. During this period, over 26 

million boxes of California stone fruit have been exported to Mexico under either a fumigation or ‘‘systems approach’’ (non-fumigation) protocol. Since the inception of this program, the Mexican government has required that their plant 

quarantine officials ‘‘supervise’’ the activities of the program’s participants, 

USDA’s Animal Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), and California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) or county regulatory officials in California. The annual cost to industry for the required Mexican monitoring program has grown to over $470,000 in recent years. These costs are charged back 

to the packing companies, such as Gerawan Farming, participating in each 

year’s program. TASC funds have helped to defray some of the costs of Mexican 

oversight while the industry continues to work with USDA/APHIS, USDA’s Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS), and other government offices as necessary to 

negotiate an end to Mexico’s excessive oversight and regulatory requirements. 

This funding will help ensure the long-term viability of the export program for 

all California shippers which is extremely important not only because the Mexican market is of great value in and of itself, but also because it represents significant demand that helps stabilize all other markets, including domestic. 

Without Federal funding, it is likely that the costs of Mexican oversight in California would prohibit many California shippers, particularly the smaller companies, from participating in this program.

• Support through TASC funding has allowed our producers to work towards developing alternative chemical and non-chemical treatments to replace methyl 

bromide fumigation as a quarantine measure. This research has helped meet 

quarantine needs within export markets and reduce the post-harvest losses 

caused by pathogens, insects and some post-harvest treatments themselves. 

Funds have provided stone fruit growers with the ability to satisfy the quarantine concerns within a number of markets, such as Australia, Mexico, Canada 

and Colombia.

• Without the assistance of Federal funding provided under the TASC program, 

participating organizations such as Gerawan Farming, Inc. would be unable to 

undertake these types of activities and could not develop the necessary data to 

assist USDA in negotiating reduced mitigation protocols to maintain or expand 

U.S. agricultural product exports. Without TASC, our industry could not have 

shipped the over ten million packages representing 20% of our volume to our 

export partners last year.

Because of its variety and clear superiority, the U.S. specialty crop sector is one 

of the most vibrant components of U.S. agricultural trade. The TASC program and 

other programs discussed today are vital to maintaining the sector’s access to export 

markets and its global competitiveness. 

Again, thank you for the opportunity to provide the Committee with testimony on 

the benefits of market promotion programs and their effectiveness on expanding exports of U.S. agricultural products.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you to all the panelists, and in the interest of efficiency I would like to defer now to the Ranking Member, 

Mr. Costa. 

Mr. COSTA. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Let me quickly 

go through a couple of the different witnesses. 

Mr. Wootton, I want to ask the same question to you that I asked 

earlier to Mr. Brewer, and that is I believe that the Market Access 

Program for agriculture across the country has had tremendous 

benefits, and you cited that in your testimony. You also were very 

clear to let people understand that while Sunkist is a well-known, 

popular brand name, it is an organization that for over 100 years 

represents over 4,000 growers in which the average size of an orchard of citrus is 40 acres. And with all due deference to my 

friends in Florida, California now and has been for a little bit, the 

number one citrus state in the nation. 

59

The Market Access Program: Is this corporate welfare? 

Mr. WOOTTON. No, Congressman, it is not, and we object to that 

mischaracterization which some organizations I know said that before the Government Reform and Oversight Committee hearing 

within the last 2 weeks and cited that a number of major corporations, for profit corporations were the beneficiaries of MAP funds. 

It was completely untrue. 

Congress in 1995 reestablished new eligibility requirements for 

participation in MAP, and as Mr. Brewer outlined, these are notfor-profit U.S. agricultural trade associations, not-for-profit cooperatives, State Regional Trade Groups, and the beneficiaries are 

small business enterprises and small farmers. 

So this is certainly not corporate welfare. 

Mr. COSTA. Thank you very much. Mr. Nikolich, thank you for 

coming all the way from California. You did a good job in explaining how your efforts and with Gerawan Farms have done in using 

the Technical Assistance for Specialty Crop Program. 

For newer Members here on the Committee, we deal with this 

regularly, but could you explain the challenges that we face with 

sanitary and phytosanitary standards, technical barriers that can 

be non-tariff trade barriers that we deal with on specialty crops 

compared with other agricultural products, even with countries 

that we have an agreement with like NAFTA? 

Mr. NIKOLICH. You are referring to for lack of a better term, nonscientific-based barriers? 

Mr. COSTA. Yes. Non-tariff barriers. 

Mr. NIKOLICH. Every year we are always waiting for the other 

shoe to drop, invasive pest species or a major concern to us in California. We have a number of countries who have imposed barriers 

to trade based on phytosanitary conditions that may or may not 

have much to do with science. There are pest species that we have 

at great cost to our industry, developed phytosanitary quarantine 

treatments, and those regulations are often considered to be unnecessarily complex and rigorous. And it has been a real challenge, not 

only in developing the science necessary to do quarantine treatments but to also overcome the fact that it is a moving target, and 

it is very difficult to attempt to keep up with the changes. 

Mr. COSTA. Before my time expires here, could you give an example on the TASC, what kind of market intelligence you have been 

able to gain in terms of marketing your products abroad and how 

it has impacted? And also, as we look at the reauthorization of the 

farm bill, what changes you might recommend we make in TASC. 

Mr. NIKOLICH. The primary benefit that we have had through 

the TASC funding has been to work directly with our export partners to understand their needs. For instance, food safety may be 

a number one concern in the U.S. but really chemical residues are 

number one interest to most of our export partners. So developing 

a personal relationship with our export partners facilitated through 

the meetings and the dialogue and the systems that have been supported through TASC funding has been of great importance to stay 

in touch and to understand the changes and the needs of our customers. 

In terms of recommended changes to TASC funding or additions, 

for instance, as was noted earlier, table grapes has a pre-clearance 

60

program. There is a great need for a similar program in stone fruit, 

and we would also like to rely more on USDA, our own California 

Department of Food and Agriculture and agricultural commissioners’ offices for oversight rather than have to go to the expense 

of funding our export partners’ representatives here on our soil. 

Mr. COSTA. You know, sometimes I hate when we use acronyms 

in government, and by the same token as farmers sometimes with 

the wonderful variety of crops we grow around the country, we 

tend to take terms for granted, but it is important for those people 

who don’t grow stone fruit in other parts of the country that we explain what category of fruits that we include in stone fruit. 

Mr. NIKOLICH. You are right. Stone fruit, everything from apricots, peaches, plums, nectarines, pluots, plumcots. There is a variety and also cherries are considered stone fruit, anything with a pit 

that you need to throw out is a stone fruit. 

Mr. COSTA. It is a stone fruit. I was reminded of that by my colleague from Illinois, and we use that term interchangeably, and I 

knew most of the listing, but I knew I would leave out pluots. 

Mr. NIKOLICH. Pluots, plumcots. They are inter-specific hybrids 

of apricots, plums. 

Mr. COSTA. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Thompson. 

Mr. THOMPSON. All right. Well, I appreciate Mr. Costa seeking 

that for those of us who have been sitting here wondering what a 

stone fruit was. I love learning something new. 

Mr. COSTA. And afraid to ask. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Afraid to ask. That is right. I figured it had to 

be round. 

You know, this past 2009, the American dairy prices dropped to 

unprecedented lows. I think nationwide our dairy farmers were losing at that point certainly in my district, and around the country, 

an average of $100 per cow per month. It is generally accepted that 

a decrease in exporting was a major factor of these low prices. 

Now, a number of steps were subsequently taken by USDA, including the activation of the Dairy Export Incentive Program, 

which appears to be somewhat helpful. 

Mr. Hamilton, I know in your testimony you referenced the organization you work with and the types of those you are representing 

today, I saw reference to Vermont creamery and ice cream that was 

being exported to China. I wanted to seek your thoughts of have 

the measures that USDA has been doing, are they helpful, and 

what else can we do to increase our dairy exports? 

Mr. HAMILTON. Thank you for that question. My expertise is less 

on dairy policy than it is on the process of helping small companies 

export their finished goods, which is why you saw in my written 

testimony the examples of the ice cream and the cheese products. 

So from the perspective that we look at, we are helping companies that generally have branded products that they are trying to 

educate their foreign consumers about the value of that brand as 

a U.S. product. So, the area that we are supporting them is at the 

higher end in terms of the value-added product rather than just 

the commodities. 

61

In terms of the dairy policy that affects commodities, I would 

have to defer to my colleagues from the Dairy Export Council, who 

unfortunately aren’t here this morning. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Sure. Some of those, the ones that are exporting 

those final finished products, is there anything that stands out in 

your mind of just best practices, the ones that have been very successful? What are they doing that others are not to be successful 

at penetrating those foreign markets? 

Mr. HAMILTON. The really critical component for everyone is really to find out what your customer is interested in, and so that really varies by market and by product. We were talking yesterday 

with a small company that wants to export yogurt, and the challenge is what flavors do they want in a particular country. Yogurt 

presents its own challenges because of the bacteria that it normally 

and rightfully has, and there is also a lot of protectionism against 

dairy. If you have a small company that wants to export their dairy 

products to Canada, which is a natural first market for them, it is 

a big challenge. So they really need to look at the taste and the 

preferences of the consumer. 

Mexicans, for example, prefer soft cheese and light cheese over 

hard cheese. So if you go to Mexico and try to sell a hard yellow 

cheese, you are going to have a lot harder time than if you have 

gone down, done your market research, and figured out exactly 

what it is that the customers are looking for. And once you have 

done that and can then customize your product, your label, your 

packaging, then you stand to be a lot more successful. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Great. Thank you. Mr. Wootton, the President’s 

National Export Initiative identified small and medium-sized businesses, referred to as SMEs, as a key focus group on which to double our exports, U.S. exports. 

Of your members those of similar cooperatives and other entities 

from which you are familiar throughout the agriculture industry, 

how many would you say would already qualify as an SME? 

Mr. WOOTTON. Congressman, I would say virtually all of our 

membership would be SMEs. I mean, by definition of Small Business Administration it is under a certain number of employees that 

work for that company, and in the case of our cooperative itself, 

Sunkist itself, we ourselves would qualify as a small medium enterprise. 

So we have slightly over 300 employees worldwide for Sunkist. 

We have a very well-known name, but we are a small organization, 

and our ownership of 4,000 citrus growers are themselves very 

small family farmers. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Do you feel that there is a need to refocus the 

MAP or the FMD Programs towards SMEs? 

Mr. WOOTTON. No. I think the SME objective of the Foreign Agricultural Service is already being accomplished, and perhaps they 

were unaware of who the constituencies were that were benefiting 

from these programs. I mean, in the case of these programs they 

are essentially the small farmers, small to medium enterprises, 

small businesses that are participants either through their cooperatives or through the regional, state and regional trading organizations. 

62

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you. Thank you, gentlemen, for your testimony. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Vermont, Mr. Welch. 

Mr. WELCH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

You know, it is tremendous what the promotion program does because we have to sell more ag products, and for those of us who 

are supporters of that effort, I think we have the biggest responsibility to try to improve it and identify areas where it needs improvement and correction. 

So what I would like to do is have each of you just very quickly 

tell us the two things that you would do to improve the effort that 

we need to make, and I will start with you, Mr. Wootton. 

Mr. WOOTTON. The effort that we ourselves need to make or the 

effort that USDA would need to make in order to——

Mr. WELCH. Well, give me a one and one. I mean, the goal here 

has to be to promote and sell, successfully, more of our ag products. 

Mr. WOOTTON. Right. 

Mr. WELCH. Now, if you have a special way to do it with dairy, 

I am always interested, but, seriously, the issue for us is who promotes it, we have a bigger responsibility than anyone else to improve it so that it doesn’t become subject to this attack, a global 

attack that is, ‘‘corporate welfare.’’ This is about growing our economy and making agriculture thrive across the country. 

So I am interested in your two points. 

Mr. WOOTTON. From the industry perspective, I mean, it is the 

industry’s obligation to best know their own markets and where 

they have the opportunities to export and sell those products. That 

is not a role for the government. 

Mr. WELCH. Right. 

Mr. WOOTTON. And so, it is up to us to identify those markets 

and try to compete effectively there. For an organization like 

Sunkist our greatest asset is our brand, and that is a huge tool for 

us to be able to establish a relationship with customers and consumers in those markets. 

Mr. WELCH. Right. Okay. Let me go to Mr. Censky. I am not 

going to have a lot of time. Thank you. 

Mr. CENSKY. I would say one of the key things that I think is 

important on both the Foreign Market Development Program and 

the Market Access Program is that there are the requirements for 

evaluation. We as participants are constantly evaluating activities, 

our activities, finding out if they were successful, how we can 

change them to improve them in the future, are we moving the 

needle in the markets, and that is one of the key requirements. 

Mr. WELCH. And do you think we are self-critical enough in that 

review? 

Mr. CENSKY. I think we are, and we do bring in outside evaluators as well, so it is not just our staff that are looking at our own 

programs. 

Mr. WELCH. Right. 

Mr. CENSKY. We are bringing in outside evaluators. 

Mr. WELCH. Thank you. Mr. Lively. 

Mr. LIVELY. Yes. Thank you, sir. I would agree with Mr. Wootton 

in large regard. I think from the standpoint of the red meat indusVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:20 Jun 07, 2011 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 I:\DOCS\112-09\65893.TXT BRIAN
63

try, which I represent, the clear trend is towards more branded 

products. 

Mr. WELCH. Yes. 

Mr. LIVELY. You know, historically it was basically a commodity 

business, but that is changing. You see it here at home, and you 

especially see it in overseas markets. The truth is the branded 

guidelines that exist today under MAP make it difficult for us to 

support introducing some of those brands into the market, and to 

be clear, I am not talking about the government using taxpayers’ 

money to support brands of humungous companies. 

Mr. WELCH. No. 

Mr. LIVELY. But for smaller companies, and there are an awful 

lot of small specialized meat companies that we think could do very 

well in the export market, with a little more streamlining in the 

way the branded program offers. 

Mr. WELCH. Well, I would be interested in that. You know, 

Vermont, we focused on this branding and the Vermont brand, my 

local farmers tell me really helps them with sales. So we have to 

protect a brand and promote a brand. That makes a lot of sense. 

Mr. Hamilton. 

Mr. HAMILTON. Sure. Two things. Number one, and this follows 

up on what Mr. Lively said. The USDA has been in the process for 

about 3 years of issuing new regulations that govern the MAP Program that we feel would make it much more accessible and much 

more applicable in today’s market. The regulations that exist right 

now were written before electronic marketing became common. 

Mr. WELCH. Right. 

Mr. HAMILTON. And in the international marketplace that is extremely important now. So the issuance of those new regulations 

on the MAP Program would be number one. 

Number two I would say often lost in the conversation in terms 

of FAS’s capabilities are their locally-engaged staff at their embassies around the world. 

Mr. WELCH. Right. 

Mr. HAMILTON. You hear often about the Foreign Service officers, 

but there is a tremendous amount of expertise on the local staff 

that are hired, that have the relationships with the industries. 

Mr. WELCH. Let me stop you there. That is a good point. I just 

have a little time. I wanted to let Mr. Nikolich speak, too. Thank 

you for that. 

Mr. NIKOLICH. Number one, harmonize MRLs, maximum residue 

limits, so that everybody is on the same page and that they are 

science based, so that they make sense. 

Number two would be flavor sells. Phytosanitary quarantine 

treatments are difficult to issue, to contend with. Some of those 

treatments diminish the flavor and quality of our stone fruit, and 

to the extent that research can be done to improve that situation 

the better off industry will be. 

Mr. WELCH. Thank you. I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. The gentleman from Indiana, Mr. 

Stutzman. 

Mr. STUTZMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My question is for 

Mr. Lively. After the BSE incident the beef market took a huge hit. 

64

While beef exports have finally rebounded a little since then in 

over $4 billion in 2010, it is only 84 percent of 2003 levels. 

How important has USDA’s Emerging Markets Program been to 

restoring market access lost due to the BSE-related import restrictions? 

Mr. LIVELY. Thank you, Congressman. Yes. We did achieve this 

year for the first time since the BSE problem emerged in 2003, the 

value of exports that we had that year, but as you point out, the 

volume still falls short of our 2003 level. 

In my opinion as I touched on in my testimony, and the EMP 

Program was critical to our ability to respond to this problem in 

emerging markets, of course, which excludes markets like Japan 

and Korea and Taiwan. We have used Emerging Markets funds to 

support bringing, as I mentioned, officials from countries like Mexico, the Philippines, Egypt, et cetera, to the U.S. Fundamental to 

getting past where we are today or where we were at least then 

on the BSE problem is convincing governments that we do have the 

controls in place, and frankly in many cases bringing them up to 

speed on the science of BSE and the science of risk assessment. 

So countries reacted quickly to that crisis, they took positions, 

which became policies, which became very difficult to change. So 

over time this educational effort, this, if you will, capacity-building 

effort with foreign officials has been critical. We are now back in 

specifically in two of the emerging markets that I mentioned in 

Egypt and the Philippines. We now have restored complete access 

for U.S. beef. So we do consider that a victory. We still have a long 

way to go in some other places. 

Mr. STUTZMAN. Mr. Censky, in your testimony you mentioned 

how much the EU is spending on export promotion. Given the large 

amount of money our competitors spend on their own exports, how 

important do you believe the partnership is between FSA and our 

small and medium-sized agribusinesses, and are we getting the 

value for the dollar spent? 

Mr. CENSKY. I think we are. It is, number one, it is extremely 

important, and we are getting the value. The government funding 

is actually attracting more dollars. In the case of the soybean industry ourselves, we are investing $2 for every dollar in funding 

that we receive under those programs, and so definitely we are expending our own resources and want to make sure that it is as effective as possible and that we are moving the needle. 

And we definitely, I mean, just the fact that we have moved from 

just soybeans, being a relatively minor commodity 40, 50 years ago, 

to where we are today at over $23 billion in exports shows the importance of foreign market development. 

Mr. STUTZMAN. In the last 2 minutes here and each of you could 

answer this briefly, are you seeing new interest from producers to 

export products? You know, a lot of times we look within our own 

small world sometimes, but is there new interest? Is there the demand that is there that people are producing more, and they are 

saying, well, where can we start marketing our products and approaching you all? 

You had mentioned a yogurt facility. Are there other sectors that 

are starting to grow? Obviously, with beef we have a long way to 

65

go, and we know our possibilities there, but any new emerging 

markets? 

Mr. HAMILTON. I guess what I would say to this because this is 

our day-to-day challenge is how do we convince small companies 

that they should be exporting. Only about 94 percent of U.S. companies don’t export. The challenge isn’t just economic. It is cultural. 

We as a country are not known for our exporting capabilities 

among small companies. We have never really had to do that as 

an economy, and so since the President has come out with the National Export Initiative, that has created some more interest among 

people who are starting to think, oh, maybe this is something that 

could apply to me. 

And so, the important thing, at least in the small companies that 

we work with, is they need to hear from somebody with influence 

that this is possible. And so as you are out talking to people, I 

think it would behoove you, and it would certainly help us if they 

were hearing from people that this is something that small companies can be successful at. 

Mr. STUTZMAN. Absolutely. I agree, and I actually just came back 

from a trip to the Middle East, and there is opportunities in Saudi 

Arabia and other emerging markets. That is one of the jobs I feel 

is to go back home and let folks know that there is opportunity 

there, and I know especially with agriculture we are feeding the 

world and have a lot of opportunities. 

So thank you for what you all do, and I appreciate you being 

here today. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. I now call on the distinguished Ranking Member, Mr. Costa, for a couple questions. 

Mr. COSTA. Thank you. Two questions. 

One to Mr. Lively. You have spent many years dealing with the 

beef industry across the country, the livestock industry. Can you 

give this Committee a sense of some of the challenges we face? I 

know you have spoken earlier. 

I mean, we do such a great job, in terms of not just industry 

standards, but health and safety. I have three packing plant operations in my district. Obviously, we have a little issue with CHPSA 

right now, but the BSE as you referred to it and the concerns about 

mad cow disease and others, and we have penetrated Japanese and 

South Korean markets and other Asian market as well. We have 

competitors obviously with Australia and South America. 

But some of these issues that are raised by these countries, 

where we find good customers for, they fall under the category, I 

guess, of non-tariff trade barriers because what happens is is, for 

example, the bone end found in South Korea a year and a half ago. 

How do we deal with this? How do we cut through the fact that 

these folks are simply being protectionists? 

Mr. LIVELY. You know, you raise an excellent point, Congressman, and it is key to our ability to succeed without a doubt in exporting both beef and pork. The BSE episode has taught us all a 

lot of lessons, I guess I would say, but one of those is that we have 

to be consistent, we have to be diligent in the way we approach 

these countries. We have to remember that once countries close 

their doors, we are there knocking on the door trying to get back 

in. Whether they are what we have all seen, and we could all say 

66

this on this panel, whether there is science to back up the position 

that the country’s taking or not, they are in control. I mean, they 

are the ones who make the decisions. 

I think we are going to have to stay on these issues and truthfully, as a country we are going to have to be consistent in the way 

we apply these rules. When we approach other countries and criticize them for their non-science-based positions and then sometimes 

in our case our position, too, is less than consistent. That makes 

it difficult. 

Mr. COSTA. I think the trucking issue earlier referenced was a 

good example of that. I think in that case we were wrong. I mean, 

we weren’t complying. 

My last question, Mr. Nikolich, I think you have done a good job 

of explaining the various challenges that we have in a lot of specialty crop areas, including stone fruit, and you talked about the 

minimum residue levels that sometimes are raised on these 

phytosanitary issues and trying to be consistent. 

I would like you to just explain to the Committee, though, and 

you referenced it in fumigants, both in fumigants and treatment of 

fruit products for export purposes but also the impact for soil fumigants and the challenges we are having right now in terms of the 

registration and finding alternatives. Because obviously a good 

tasting fruit is what you need to sell, and I promised the Chairman 

here that I would provide him some good tasting stone fruit here 

as the season comes upon us. 

But the fumigant issue still is a real problem. 

Mr. NIKOLICH. It certainly is. Methyl bromide has advantages in 

that it is very effective on a target pest, and it also disappears, so 

residues of methyl bromide on exported fruit really are not the 

issue. And so we need to have reasonable science-based approach 

to the use of fumigants. There is an awful lot of pressure on our 

industry in terms of the use of pesticides in general, and there is 

an awful lot of folks that don’t believe there is any manmade chemical that is any good for anyone, and so that is a real challenge to 

overcome. 

Whether it be soil fumigants, quarantine treatments, we really 

do need to have a science-based reasonable approach. Science has 

really suffered in this enterprise in terms of the alternatives we 

have, and there is also the component there of negotiating with our 

export partners to allow certain practices and fundamental approaches to the way we do things in terms of phytosanitary and 

quarantine practices that I think could yield results if we could 

pursue those. 

Mr. COSTA. Well, my time has expired. Mr. Chairman, I want to 

thank you for a good hearing. This is a continuing conversation 

that we must continue to have as it relates to risk assessment and 

risk management, realizing that everyone wants to ensure that we 

have the gold standard, and we apply it as it relates to both pesticides and herbicides, that these are necessary tools. The fact is 

we don’t do as good a job as we should, I guess is what I am trying 

to say, in trying to explain the comparative risks of assessment for 

the risk management and the safety features that come from it. I 

mean, if people eat healthy diets, you have far less risk than from 

obesity and the other tradeoffs. 

67

But we will continue to do a good job with this Subcommittee, 

Mr. Chairman, and we appreciate your leadership. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Costa, and thank you to the 

panel. In absentia thanks to Mr. Brewer, to our respective staffs, 

and for the audience. I think this has been a very productive hearing which we intend to continue. I think it is safe to say that the 

agricultural sector is our superstar of exports, and we want to do 

everything we can to make sure that that continues and flourishes. 

This hearing of this Subcommittee is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:28 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 

68

69

SUBMITTED LETTER BY BERRY BEDWELL, PRESIDENT, CALIFORNIA GRAPE AND TREE

FRUIT LEAGUE

April 14, 2011

Hon. TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Chairman,

Subcommittee on Rural Development, Research, Biotechnology, and Foreign Agriculture, House Committee on Agriculture, 

Washington, D.C.;

Hon. JIM COSTA, Ranking Minority Member, 

Subcommittee on Rural Development, Research, Biotechnology, and Foreign Agriculture, House Committee on Agriculture, 

Washington, D.C.

Re: April 7th hearing to review market promotion programs and their effectiveness 

on expanding exports

Dear Chairman Johnson and Ranking Member Costa:

The California Grape & Tree Fruit League (League), is a public policy agricultural 

trade association representing the State of California table grape and deciduous tree 

fruit industries; our members produce fresh fruit throughout the state and include: 

Coachella Valley (table grapes), San Joaquin Valley (all commodities), Santa Clara 

County (cherries), Lake County (pears), as well as Mendocino, Yuba, Stanislaus, San 

Joaquin and Sacramento counties (pears, plums, cherries, kiwi, apricots). The 

League provides technical assistance and advocacy for the membership on a wide 

array of issues, including international trade, marketing regulations, product transportation, and packaging and labeling requirements. 

We appreciate our industry’s opportunity to provide additional comments to the 

April 7th hearing record. Our industry utilizes programs such as the Market Access 

Program (MAP) and Technical Assistance for Specialty Crops (TASC) to supplement 

industry funding to establish and expand export markets for the California grape 

and tree fruit sector. We appreciate this opportunity to describe the positive impact 

that these programs have had on the League’s members. 

One of the League’s most important uses of Federal funding in recent years has 

been a TASC grant to offset the costs of Mexico’s burdensome inspection program 

for California stone fruit. Mexico restricts the import of California stone fruit using 

an exaggerated quarantine pest list, onerous penalties for pest interceptions and 

protocol infractions, and by requiring excessive Mexican oversight of U.S. officials 

and the stone fruit industry in California. The introduction of new pests into California in the past few years, including light brown apple moth (LBAM) and European grapevine moth (EGVM), has resulted in increased oversight of the California 

stone fruit export program by Mexican officials. 

The costs for the inspection oversight that Mexico charges to the stone fruit industry have increased annually, pushing some smaller exporters out of the export program. To maintain the program and ensure related costs do not become prohibitive, 

the League has received TASC funding for technical assistance and to ensure participation fees do not become prohibitive for California stone fruit shippers. This has 

allowed small businesses to continue exporting to Mexico, and has prevented the 

U.S. from losing Mexico as a market while officials negotiate a more permanent solution to Mexico’s import requirements. 

TASC funding has ensured that, despite the oversight program and a variety of 

other difficulties facing exporters, Mexico remains the second largest export market 

for the California tree fruit industry. California shippers exported two million cartons of stone fruit to this market in 2009, valued at $32.6 million. This is especially 

important as many shippers depend on the Mexican market to consume a size and 

quality component of annual production that is not easily marketed in the U.S. or 

in other export markets. 

Like TASC, MAP is also a vital component to the California grape and tree fruit 

industry’s export success. Though the League does not directly receive MAP funding, 

our members frequently benefit from MAP activities through other industry associations that participate in the program. MAP has helped to establish California as one 

of the world’s leading suppliers of high-quality grapes and tree fruit. According to 

the California Department of Agriculture (CDFA), California agricultural exports increased 66% from 2003 to 2009. Without the opportunities to open new markets offered by MAP, this type of growth would not be possible. 

Programs benefiting specialty crop exports are absolutely vital in this age of global agricultural competition. The small scope of U.S. export assistance programs pale 

70

in comparison to the subsidies and assistance provided by other major grape and 

tree fruit suppliers such as China, Brazil, India, and the European Union. Further, 

MAP, TASC, and other U.S. Department of Agriculture export development programs help U.S. agricultural producers confront and overcome many of the tariff 

and non-tariff barriers they face globally. 

MAP and TASC have consistently shown to be wise investments for the U.S. Government. Through increased exports and new employment opportunities, these programs pay back significant returns on the program outlays. The MAP and TASC 

programs are relatively small items in the federal budget, but they have an enormous positive impact on the livelihoods of many communities in California and 

across the country. 

Considering the importance of these programs to the League’s members and U.S. 

agriculture in general, we respectfully ask that you continue to fund MAP, TASC, 

and other export assistance programs at their full authorized levels. This will help 

the grape and tree fruit industry to continue increasing exports and providing new 

employment opportunities. 

Thank you once again for this opportunity to comment. 

Sincerely,

BERRY BEDWELL, President,

California Grape and Tree Fruit League. 

SUBMITTED STATEMENT BY SUSAN BRAUNER, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, BLUE

DIAMOND GROWERS; EXECUTIVE MEMBER, COALITION TO PROMOTE U.S.

AGRICULTURAL EXPORTS; MEMBER, NATIONAL COUNCIL OF FARMER COOPERATIVES

Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Costa, and Members of the Subcommittee. My name is Susan Brauner. I am Director of Public Affairs for Blue Diamond Growers and an Executive Member of the Coalition to Promote U.S. Agricultural Exports and a member of the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives. 

On behalf of Blue Diamond’s grower-members, and over two million farmers and 

ranchers who are members of farmer cooperatives, I am pleased to provide testimony about our vital export programs, and respectfully request that this statement 

be made part of the official hearing record. 

Blue Diamond Growers is a 100 year-old agricultural marketing cooperative 

owned and governed by over 3,000 California almond growers who average about 

60 acres of almonds each. They market their brand under the Blue Diamond label 

to 95 countries worldwide. California almond growers produce 82 percent of the 

world supply, 100 percent of the U.S. supply of almonds and export 70 percent. A 

majority of the almonds exported are sold for further processing as an ingredient 

in other foods. 

Without Blue Diamond, members would not be able to pool their resources to market and process almonds successfully in the global market. Industry earnings from 

export sales are currently valued at over $2 billion. Cooperative growers receive 

their share of these earnings as patronage dividends which are spent in Northern 

California communities where the almonds are grown. In turn, over 20,000 jobs related to the almond export business are generated in California. 

The United States must continue policies and programs that allow American agriculture to compete in a global marketplace that is still governed by unfair foreign 

subsidies and market access restrictions. Unfortunately, U.S. branded products are 

at a disadvantage in foreign markets where a country’s own brand dominates. In 

addition, almonds compete with foreign grown almonds and with other nuts that 

may be more accepted in the culture. In the European Union (EU), for example, almonds for snacking are accepted by approximately 4 percent of EU consumers on 

average. According to the WTO’s most recent statistics, the EU is also providing 

$1.4 billion in advertising and marketing activities to support their agricultural sector. It is expected that the EU will increase this spending based on a recent EU 

resolution passed by Parliament. Two-thirds of U.S. almonds are exported to EU 

countries! EU funds spent on advertising their brands and products clearly put the 

U.S. at a competitive disadvantage. 

Currently funded at $200 million, down from a $325 million level, MAP is the 

only tool many in agriculture have that is accepted under WTO rules to counter unfair foreign trade practices. This current funding level has not changed in 10 years, 

and a strong case can be made that as more countries struggle to compete in the 


11209007.eps
71

global marketplace, unfair trade practices are at an all-time high. The program is 

the most efficient, cost-share government program that requires one hundred percent matching funds by branded programs. In addition to the matching fund requirement, Blue Diamond funds its own research, export team and their travel, and 

all other expenses related to international trade. Participants can only be small 

business, nonprofit agricultural trade associations, nonprofit agricultural cooperatives and nonprofit state regional trade groups. 

A recent independent USDA-commissioned audit of MAP and other USDA trade 

programs prepared by HIS Global Insight, INC confirmed that MAP uses government funds to supplement, not replace, industry funds. According to the report, the 

increase in market development spending by government and industry from 2002–

09 enlarged U.S. market share and increased the annual value of U.S. agricultural 

exports by $6.1 billion. This equates to $35 in agricultural export gains for every 

additional $1 expended, a 35 to 1 return on investment! 

The report also showed that from 2002–09, export gains associated with the pro- grams increased average annual farm cash receipts by $4.4 billion and net cash 

farm income by $1.5 billion. It further confirmed that, due to higher prices from increased demand abroad, U.S. domestic farm support payments were reduced by 

roughly $54 million annually, thus reducing the net cost of these U.S. programs. 

Many of our competing countries are completing their own bilateral trade agreements and have committed to increasing their support of advertising and marketing 

activities. European countries, for example, are expanding their promotional activities in other regions including Asia, Latin America and Eastern Europe. Canada, 

Australia, New Zealand, Chile and Brazil have also invested in significant promotional activities worldwide. 

The almond industry has invested in MAP activities in India and China where 

market growth potential outranks all other regions. Shipments over the last five 

years have tripled to India and have nearly doubled over the same time period annually in China! These two markets alone are returning nearly $500 million back 

to rural communities in California on an annual basis! 

Returns on investments like these are tangible examples of how sound public policy and partnership with government can benefit Americans. To remain competitive, 

it is vital that programs like MAP continue in the 2012 Farm Bill and beyond. The 

current application process and oversight works well and should not be altered. Targeting funds to specific sectors is not a viable long-term policy for success in foreign 

markets. 

Thank you for this opportunity to provide comments to the Committee and for its 

leadership on U.S. agriculture exports. We ask for your support and recognition of 

the attributes and return on investment that the Market Access Program provides 

to our farmers and ranchers and to our rural communities in an increasingly competitive global marketplace. 

SUBMITTED LETTER BY GUY P. COTTON, GROWER DIRECT MARKETING

April 15, 2011

Subcommittee on Rural Development, Research, Biotechnology, and Foreign Agriculture, House Committee on Agriculture, 

Washington, D.C.

Dear Subcommittee Members,

My name is Guy Cotton, and I serve as Managing Director of Grower Direct Marketing. As an exporter of California cherries that has close experience with the Market Access Program (MAP) and Technical Assistance for Specialty Crops (TASC), I 

appreciate this opportunity to provide my thoughts on their effectiveness. After witnessing the difference these programs have made in the California cherry industry, 

I am a firm believer that MAP and TASC merit your continued support. 

MAP and TASC funding are used by the California cherry industry through the 

California Cherry Advisory Board (CCAB). CCAB has used MAP funding very successfully to promote California cherry sales, especially in Asia. For example, cherry 

sales to Korea increased 22.5% by value to $17.4 million in 2010. Grower Direct 

Marketing contributed to this success, exporting $1,200,000 worth of cherries to 

Korea in 2010. This increase is an obvious sign that the industry’s message that 

California cherries are healthy and high-quality is resonating among Korean consumers. Without MAP funding, the significant expansion we have seen in the Korean market would be much more difficult. 

Similarly, MAP funding has contributed greatly to strong growth in the Japanese 

market. California cherry exports to Japan grew to $56.7 million in 2010, an inVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:20 Jun 07, 2011 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 6621 Sfmt 6621 I:\DOCS\112-09\65893.TXT BRIAN
72

crease of 16.7% over 2009. Grower Direct Marketing exported 165,000 cartons of 

cherries worth approximately $6,600,000 to Japan. The successful retail promotions 

and advertising that have driven this growth are attributable to the combined effort 

of industry and MAP funding. 

The TASC program is also an important tool that can help the California cherry 

industry increase exports. As mentioned above, the introduction of new quarantine 

pests creates a challenging environment for exporting California cherries. TASC provides a way to quickly address technical trade barriers as an industry, resolving 

issues that would otherwise close a market. In this way, the TASC program is an 

important safety net for the California cherry industry. While the cost of most TASC 

projects is typically fairly low, they produce a significant impact by keeping markets 

open or enabling specialty crop producers to expand their exports to a market. 

MAP, TASC, and other agricultural programs are sometimes targeted for budget 

cuts by those that do not understand their value. However, my experience with 

MAP and TASC have shown that these provide benefits that far exceed the cost of 

the programs. Even considering only the increase in export value achieved through 

these programs, MAP and TASC have displayed an enviable return on investment. 

When the additional effects of improved pricing and employment growth are 

factored in, it is clear that these programs are very successful and provide an excellent return to U.S. taxpayers. For these reasons, Grower Direct Marketing strongly 

supports full funding for MAP and TASC programs. We respectfully request that 

you to do the same. 

Thank you. 

Sincerely,

GUY P. COTTON,

Grower Direct Marketing. 

SUBMITTED STATEMENT BY WALLACE L. DARNEILLE, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF

EXECUTIVE OFFICER, PLAINS COTTON COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am writing on behalf of the 

25,000 stockholders of Plains Cotton Cooperative Association (PCCA). I ask that this 

statement be included as part of the record for your April 7 hearing regarding market promotion and development programs administered by USDA’s Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS). The success of the Market Access Program (MAP) and the Foreign Market Development (FMD) program is well documented, and I urge Congress 

and the Administration to maintain funding for these programs at the $200 million 

level as authorized by the 2008 Farm Bill. 

Exports of U.S. agricultural products facilitated by MAP and FMD play a key role 

in the U.S. economy and support 1.1 million American jobs. Agriculture’s trade surplus also helps reduce the United States’ overall trade deficit. Exports are vitally 

important to U.S. cotton producers including the farmer-owners of PCCA. Today, the 

United States exports more than 95 percent of its cotton as fiber, yarn or fabric. 

Without those export markets, the U.S. cotton industry would be much smaller than 

it is. Furthermore, our cotton producers could not compete against the heavily subsidized foreign cotton in these export markets without MAP and FMD funded programs. 

With these programs, Cotton Council International (CCI) promotes U.S. cotton, 

yarn and fabric in the world’s major markets, and the results are significant. A good 

example is Turkey, PCCA’s top export market during the past 10 years, where CCI 

has worked since the mid-1980s. U.S. cotton exports to Turkey have increased 225 

percent during the past decade to more than 2.2 million bales, a 64 percent market 

share, with an estimated value of $1.8 billion. 

Another example is Vietnam where CCI has had a local representative on the 

ground for the past four years. By sponsoring trade missions, hosting seminars and 

working with Cotton Incorporated to carry out technical servicing to local mills, 

Vietnam’s imports of U.S. cotton have increased 228 percent during that period, a 

48 percent market share, with a value of $303 million. 

CCI’s Sourcing USA program that promotes U.S. yarn and fabric sales to Latin 

America has led to a 50 percent increase in sales to Caribbean Basin countries since 

2000, accounting for 90 percent of all cotton spun in the United States. This success 

has ensured as many textile-related jobs as possible remained in our country. It also 

has enabled PCCA to invest in opportunities in Latin America to move up the value 


11209008.eps
73

chain for the benefit of our farmer-owners. These investments provide the potential 

to add value to our farmers’ cotton. 

Earlier, I mentioned the competition we face from heavily subsidized foreign cotton. A 2007 study produced by the Cotton Economics Research Institute of Texas 

Tech University summarized the farm policies of 21 countries for seven major crops 

including cotton. The study found that the cotton policies of Brazil, the West African 

Countries, and China include price support, direct payments or both for their cotton 

producers. Brazil and China have single and two-tier (TRQ) import tariffs, respectively, for cotton. Brazil’s WTO bound import tariff for cotton is 35 percent, and China’s TRQ ranges from 5 to 40 percent on cotton imports above the quota amount. 

Prices received by cotton producers in the West African Countries are strictly controlled by government entities. Both Brazil and China provide credit subsidies and 

transportation/storage subsidies, and China also subsidizes input costs for fertilizer, 

irrigation, seed and energy. Thus, MAP and FMD funding is needed to counter these 

and other foreign activities. 

U.S. agricultural exports have been a strong and positive contributor to our country’s balance of trade for many years. By increasing these exports, we improve the 

lives of our farmers, create jobs, improve our balance of trade, and positively affect 

the economy. I respectfully ask you to maintain the MAP and FMD programs to 

help ensure the competitiveness of our producers in the increasingly competitive 

global market. 

SUBMITTED STATEMENT BY THOMAS C. DORR, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE

OFFICER, U.S. GRAINS COUNCIL

Thank you, Chairman Johnson, Ranking Member Costa, and distinguished Members of the House Agriculture Subcommittee on Rural Development, Research, Biotechnology, and Foreign Agriculture for holding this important oversight hearing to 

review U.S. market promotion programs and their effectiveness in expanding exports of U.S. agricultural exports. 

My name is Tom Dorr. I am President and CEO of the U.S. Grains Council 

(USGC). The Council appreciates the opportunity to submit this formal statement 

and provide our views on why these marketing programs are critical to the success 

in expanding U.S. agricultural exports. 

USGC Structure and Objectives 

Founded in 1960, The Council is a private, nonprofit corporation with 10 international offices, representatives in 16 countries and programming in more than 50 

countries. Its unique membership includes barley, corn and sorghum producer organizations and agribusinesses from across the United States with a common objective 

in developing export markets. 

These members provide financial support along with member goods and services 

contributions and foreign third party goods and services contributions totaling $13.4 

million in 2010. As an eligible cooperator under the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) market promotion programs, the Council was able to leverage the member and third party goods and services contributions and receive $15.4 million, primarily for use under the Market Access Program 

(MAP) and Foreign Market Development Program (FMD). This unique private-public partnership enables the Council and FAS to jointly support the development, 

maintenance and expansion of commercial exports of U.S. agricultural commodities 

and products. 

The singular focus of the Council is emblematic of our vision—Developing Markets, Enabling Trade, Improving Lives. We accomplish that vision with our ability 

to work with the food and feed sectors in countries around the world to educate and 

demonstrate how they can efficiently and effectively use feed grains to improve their 

ability to grow their industries. This, in turn, enables them to provide their consumers with safe, affordable food that improves their standard of living. 

The underlying premise of export market development is take advantage of potential market opportunities where there is population and economic growth that is 

generating a growing middle class looking to improve their diets. To accomplish that 

requires transparent government policies that comply with international trade rules 

and regulations and as well as transparent market institutions and systems. It can 

involve working with local agricultural industries to assist them to learn how to address policy issues with their government in the interest of their industry. 

It also involves exposing food and feed industries to modern production/management practices that increase their efficiency, quality and profitability. It is responding to consumer demand issues (price, quality, safety and preference). Finally, it inVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:20 Jun 07, 2011 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 6621 Sfmt 6621 I:\DOCS\112-09\65893.TXT BRIAN
74

volves engagement and constant interaction with our customers through timely 

market information and ensuring they understand how to utilize the information. 

In essence, it is about bringing change to institutions, policies, relationships .That 

in turn, serves as the catalyst for entrepreneurial U.S. companies to pursue these 

market opportunities which creates economic value both here domestically but also 

in our partner countries. 

The many Council programs and activities include:

• Capacity-building to the aquaculture, livestock, poultry and dairy sectors in best 

management practices and training in feed formulation and price benefits associated with using corn, sorghum, barley, and important co-products such as distiller’s dried grains and other important value-added products;

• Marketing and promotion of food uses;

• U.S. grain trade promotion through grain marketing and risk management 

training for grain importers;

• Working with governments to establish rules-based regulations on grain standards, food safety, biotechnology and transportation; and

• Addressing tariff and non-tariff barriers that are constraints to trade. 

Leveraging Market Development Programs 

The Council’s market development programs—capacity building; direct trade from 

marketing efforts; addressing market access barriers—emanate from the Unified 

Export Strategy (UES) that is developed annually and forwarded to FAS for their 

consideration and approval. The UES serves as the blueprint for the various 

planned programs and activities that the Council anticipates will be implemented. 

MAP provides the majority of the funding for USGC market promotion activities. 

For example, through these funds, U.S. sorghum checkoff investments in international marketing efforts pay significant dividends, as evidenced by USDA’s record 

of sorghum exports to Morocco. According to USDA, Morocco went from importing 

no U.S. sorghum in the 2009 marketing year, to 123,000 tons (4.8 million bushels) 

valued at $21 million in the 2010 marketing year. So far in the 2011 marketing year 

through January, Morocco has imported nearly 48,000 tons valued at more than $11 

million. 

Also funded in-part by MAP was the 2011 VIV-Asia Trade Show in Bangkok, 

Thailand. The U.S. Grains Council and some of its members recently took part in 

what is touted as the largest feed and livestock industry show in Southeast Asia. 

According to preliminary survey results, Council members generated an estimated 

$38,000 in on-site sales from the event, including five brokerage trades. 

Surveys also project that 12 month sales resulting from the show will reach at least $195,000 for Council members. The Council’s participation in the biannual 

trade show allows it, and participating members, the opportunity to meet with current and prospective contacts and customers. 

In addition, a portion of MAP funds are reserved for Global Based Initiatives 

(GBI). The Council has utilized this initiative to help form the Food and Agriculture 

Export Alliance (FAEA) in 2004 as an effort to achieve more intensive cooperation 

among various commodity groups. FAEA members include: U.S. Grains Council 

(Lead organization in submitting GBI proposal); U.S. Soybean Export Council; U.S. 

Dairy Export Council; USA Poultry & Egg Export Council; U.S. Meat Export Federation—representing almost 40 percent of U.S. agricultural exports. 

The broad goals of FAEA are to enhance cooperation among commodity groups in 

addressing Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS), Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT), 

Codex and food safety issues; and to focus more effectively on developing export 

markets for the benefit of U.S. agriculture in general and of the U.S. grain-oilseedsanimal sectors in particular. 

FAEA has identified SPS regulations as an area of common concern to its stakeholders. This is an area that has become increasingly important as other forms of 

trade barriers are being eliminated through multi-party trade agreements or bilateral negotiations. SPS is now referred to as ‘the trade barrier of choice’ and poses 

a threat to existing and expansion of world agricultural trade. 

The next GBI project, which began in 2007, provided for multi-year efforts in Vietnam to encourage development and implementation of food safety laws and regulations. The project goal was to increase consumer confidence in the safety of meat, 

milk and eggs, leading to accelerated demand growth; and to provide reasonable 

food safety rules that ensure access for imports from the United States to meet that 

growing demand. 

Beginning with the 2008 GBI FAEA developed and supports an English/Mandarin 

website containing U.S. government documents on food safety. The purpose of the 

website is to enable Chinese government officials to understand U.S. food safety regVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:20 Jun 07, 2011 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 6621 Sfmt 6621 I:\DOCS\112-09\65893.TXT BRIAN
75

ulations and practices. That understanding will form the basis for development of 

Chinese food safety regulations in harmony with U.S. regulations. This 2010 GBI 

introduces a new opportunity for FAEA to cooperate with the Chinese food safety 

agency AQSIQ to help build harmony between central government regulations and 

actual practices in the provinces. 

Equally important the FMD program provides cost-share assistance for the Council’s efforts to support overseas market development activities to remove long-term 

impediments to increased trade opportunities. 

The presence of distiller’s dried grains with soluble (DDGS), a co-product of U.S. 

ethanol production, is gaining popularity in markets around the world. U.S. corn 

producers send their corn to U.S. ethanol plants and receive added value for their 

crop from DDGS, a widely used feed ingredient in the United States. 

In the 2010 marketing year, many notable markets drastically increased their imports of U.S. DDGS. These markets include Chile, Morocco, Egypt, China, Japan 

and Thailand. The U.S. Grains Council conducts educational seminars and feeding 

trials to increase familiarity and usage of the U.S. feed ingredient. 

MAP and FMD funds have allowed the Council to actively promote DDGS around 

the world, increasing demand for the product and thus increasing exports to reach 

7.2 million metric tons in 2010 for a total of $1.4 billion dollars in sales. 

The Quality Samples Program has been an integral tool to introducing new products such as DDGS and other value-enhanced grains into potential export markets. 

Through the use of QSP, the Council was able to tender 60 metric tons of U.S. sorghum to Saudi Arabia in February 2011 for commercial poultry feeding trials. 

In Saudi Arabia, the government subsidizes feed grains—but the subsidy varies 

from grain to grain. The country is the largest importer of barley in the world but 

when global grain prices spiked in 2006–07, the government began to look at other 

grains in order to diversify its needs. Subsidy levels, however, continue to vary and 

are not always on par with the value of the grain. 

By conducting the trial, the Council aims to demonstrate the feeding value of U.S. 

sorghum to Saudi Arabian feed manufacturers, livestock producers and the government, which may then treat the feed grain on a more equitable basis. 

Finally, the Emerging Markets Program allows the Council and other cooperators 

to carry out technical assistance activities that promote the export of U.S. agricultural products and address technical barriers to trade in emerging markets. USGC 

is targeting India as a high potential priority emerging market. With its steadily 

growing population and annual economic growth, India is emerging middle class will 

undergo dynamic expansion and the need for increased protein in their diets. The 

Council will identify and address the policy barriers to trade and the best approach 

to resolve these issues. It will also involve conducting sector specific market assessments in the food and feed sectors and approaches to help build demand for feed 

products in their dairy and poultry sectors. 

Performance and Accountability 

The Council has historically placed a high priority in demonstrating performance 

and accountability in terms of the impacts of its programs and activities to both 

FAS and to our members. USGC takes the responsibility of appropriately and effectively utilizing Federal tax dollars seriously. Over the entire period of participation 

of the market development programs, the Council has consistently met the requirements of the FAS Office of Compliance and Emergency planning. 

In terms of the annualized value of the trade impact of USGC activities, Informa 

Economics, a third party economic research firm, reviewed the Council programs 

and the impact it had on trade. According to this impartial analysis, the Council’s 

efforts generated more $395 million in exports last year. This equates to almost $22 

worth of exported corn, barley, sorghum and DDGS for every $1 invested by members and federal government. The increased demand from these exports increased 

the price paid to U.S. farmers, generating more than $915 million in income for all 

U.S. feed grain producer, providing a return of more than $50 in additional income 

for every $1 invested by the Council. 

The Council’s objectives and strategies are assessed on a continual basis through 

the prism of policy—not just trade policy but all policies that can affect or impact 

demand, marketing and trade facilitation. From the assessment of all of the Council’s marketing activities, the consistent theme was that policy constraints are the 

overarching concern in over 60 percent of all target markets. 

As a result, the Council has developed concise country market assessment 

overviews that provide a snapshot of the current and potential market opportunities; ranking of constraints that are policy, demand, marketing or trade related; desired actions to address the constraints; and specific performance measures to establish goals and calculate gains against those goals. These measures will be incorVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:20 Jun 07, 2011 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 6621 Sfmt 6621 I:\DOCS\112-09\65893.TXT BRIAN
76

porated and supplement the existing benchmarks of our UES submissions to FAS. 

An example of this document is provided as attachment to the statement. 

In an effort to build off of this effort, the Council is coordinating an effort through 

a GBI initiative with other cooperators that will develop a systematic methodology 

for measuring market development gains and for relating programs to trade results 

across multiple commodities, markets and issues. We believe that a more comprehensive and coordinated methodology and information management system will 

enhance the ability to allocate resources wisely and report more accurately on the 

value of USDA-funded export market development programs. 

Growing Importance of International Trade 

U.S. exports of agricultural commodities and products have grown significantly 

over the last decade. The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s most recent announcement of a record $135.5 billion dollars in projected U.S. agricultural exports for FY 

2011 and its continued growing contribution of a U.S. trade surplus demonstrate 

that strong growth. 

The opportunities for continued growth of U.S. agricultural exports are potentially 

open-ended, particularly in China, India and Southeast Asia. In addition, significant 

opportunities for strong growth of agricultural commodities exist in our own hemisphere. 

The Council strongly supports the Administration’s National Export Initiative and 

its aggressive goals of doubling U.S. exports in the next five years and generating 

2 million U.S. jobs, and growth. U.S. agriculture has been a strong contributor and 

beneficiary of participating in international markets. 

However, if U.S. agriculture is to continue to be competitive and take advantage 

of these tremendous opportunities, the U.S. Government has to take a leadership 

role in liberalizing global trade rules and regulations that will allow the U.S. agricultural sector to be the world’s most reliable supplier of food and feedstuffs. 

We see great opportunity and progress if there is successful ratification the existing free trade agreements with Korea, Colombia and Panama; resolution of the decade-old Doha Development Round; and completion of the 21st century Trans-Pacific 

Partnership agreement. 

Without them, it will be extremely difficult to overcome market access constraints 

and take advantage of the strong potential growth opportunities. With global trade 

becoming increasingly important, the need for these market development programs 

becomes even more vital, particularly with strong competition from other trading 

partners that are aggressively pursuing bilateral and regional trade agreements 

with our most important customers. 

Summary/Conclusions 

In summary, open markets that provide for the free flow of trade will be necessary if we are to meet the future needs of a growing world population their food 

and nutrition requirement. The United States can continue to be the world’s most 

consistent and reliable supplier and meet the needs of countries to be self-sufficient 

in food, fuel, feed and fiber. 

As this global demand continues to grow, it will have an increasing role in providing economic returns to our nation’s producers and increase economic growth and 

promote new job opportunities. However, market development programs will be 

even more critical if we are to take advantage of these global opportunities. 

Again, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Costa, and Members of the subcommittee, 

I appreciate the opportunity to offer the views of the U.S. Grains Council on these 

vital market development programs.

77

ATTACHMENT

China 

Market Snapshot—U.S. Grains Council

China Market Profile—Prepared January 2011, U.S. Grains Council. 

China 

USGC Game Plan 2011—U.S. Grains Council

China Market Profile—Prepared January 2011, U.S. Grains Council. 


11209009.eps 11209010.eps
78

China 

Weighted Performance Measures—U.S. Grains Council

China Market Profile—Prepared January 2011, U.S. Grains Council.


11209011.eps
79

SUBMITTED LETTER BY DENNIS ENGELHARD, PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES DRY BEAN

COUNCIL

April 15, 2011

Hon. TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON,

Chairman,

Subcommittee on Rural Development, Research, Biotechnology, and Foreign Agriculture, House Committee on Agriculture, 

Washington, D.C.

Re: Comments for the Record for the Subcommittee’s April 7, 2011 Public Hearing 

to review market promotion programs and their effectiveness on expanding export 

of U.S. agricultural products

Dear Chairman Johnson:

Please accept the following as comments of the United States Dry Bean Council 

submitted for the record for the Subcommittee’s April 7, 2011 hearing, the stated 

objective of which was to review market promotion programs and their effectiveness 

on expanding export of U.S. agricultural products. USDBC’s purpose in submitting 

these comments is to go on record as a strong supporter of the Market Access Program, the Foreign Market Development Program, and other market promotion programs of the U.S. Government. USDBC would like to appropriately recognize the 

programs’ effectiveness in helping to maintain our competitive position and in expanding exports of U.S. agricultural products in general, and U.S. grown dry beans, 

in particular. 

USDBC is the sole national trade association representing all segments of the domestic dry bean industry. Our membership includes state and regional grower organizations, state and regional dealer/shipper organizations, processors, canners, retailers, and other entities in more than 35 states involved in the U.S. dry bean industry. More than 20 classes of dry edible beans were planted on more than 1.7 million acres in the U.S. in 2010, producing dry beans with a farm gate value approaching $1 billion. 

As is the case with other U.S. agricultural commodities, dry bean exports make 

up a significant portion of annual U.S. dry bean disappearance, averaging about 35 

percent of production. As a result, effective export market promotion is fundamental 

to the continued success and health of all segments of the U.S. dry bean industry. 

That is why USDBC has been an active participant in the MAP, FMD, and other 

export market promotion programs for a number of years, and has annually adopted 

a position paper that, among other points, strongly supports continuation of MAP 

and FMD at their full mandatory funding levels. In Fiscal Year 2010, USDBC was 

fortunate enough to utilize $1.08 million in MAP funds and $138,000 in FMD funds, 

along with contributed dry bean industry funds, to generically promote U.S. grown 

dry beans throughout the world. 

Some examples of positive export progress that has resulted from USDBC participation in these valuable programs for marketing years 2005 through 2010 follows:

• Annual U.S. dry bean exports to the world increased 208 percent in value from 

$136,384,000 to $284,480,000;

• Participation in USDA promotion programs helped U.S. dry bean exporters capture more than 15 percent share of one the world’s largest bean consuming markets—Mexico. U.S. exports to Mexico have increased 309 percent in value from 

$31,797,000 to $98,364,000;

• Angola, a former U.S. food aid recipient, became a major importer of U.S. dry 

beans as a result of USDA funded market promotion program activities. U.S. 

dry bean exports to Angola have increased 367 percent in value from $2,292,000 

to $8,414,000;

• USDA market promotion programs helped turn around exports to canners in 

the United Kingdom, which were being lost to competing suppliers in Canada, 

Ethiopia, and China. U.S. dry bean exports to the United Kingdom increased 

167 percent in value from $15,193,000 to $25,461,000;

• U.S. pinto beans have become the number one bean of choice for Dominicans 

thanks to USDA funded trade service and consumer promotion programs U.S. 

dry bean exports to the Dominican Republic increased 300 percent in value from 

$7,760,000 to $23,305,000;

• With the help of USDA international market promotion programs the U.S. Dry 

Bean Council encouraged Guatemala’s refried bean manufacturers to use new 

80

varieties of U.S. beans in their manufacturing processes. U.S. dry bean exports 

to Guatemala increased 368 percent in value from $1,990,000 to $6,924,000.

As these examples show, the market promotion programs have benefited all U.S. 

producers of dry beans by providing efficient and effective overseas market development activities, such as market research and analysis, educational seminars, trade 

missions, new product development tailored to cultural and regional preferences, 

participation in international food shows, and other innovative trade servicing activities. They allow U.S. dry bean growers to compete on an international playing 

field where U.S. dry beans face difficult competition from subsidized producers of 

dry beans in countries such as China, Canada and the European Union, a vital 

point since dry beans are not a U.S. program crop and U.S. growers receive no price 

supports from the U.S. Government. This last point is especially important in light 

of the fact that market promotion programs, such as MAP and FMD, are recognized 

to be acceptable components of trade policy by our international trade organizations. 

USDBC has long believed that eliminating these programs or significantly cutting 

their funding, given the continued subsidized foreign competition we face, would be 

tantamount to unilateral disarmament of this vital export component. 

USDBC recognizes the difficult choices that are faced by the need for governmental spending to be more fiscally responsible. In that regard, we believe it is 

paramount that priorities be established for those programs that have proven their 

merit and that deserve to be maintained and preserved. 

USDBC feels strongly that MAP and FMD clearly meet that criterion, which was 

established in great detail by testimony received by the Subcommittee in its hearing, i.e., agricultural exports being up more than 300 percent since the inception of 

MAP and predecessor programs; every billion dollars generated in U.S. agricultural 

exports supports 8,000 American jobs; every $1 spent in the promotion programs 

has resulted in more than $35 in export activity; the positive balance of trade enjoyed by agricultural exports continues to be one of the few bright spots in our trade 

environment, etc.

Certainly, the above examples show how these promotion programs are providing 

a significant return on investment for both the U.S. taxpayer and the U.S. dry bean 

industry. Consequently, USDBC is proud to express its continued support for, and 

recognition of the vital and helpful role that MAP and FMD play in allowing U.S. 

agricultural products in general, and U.S. dry beans in particular, to maintain and 

expand our competitive position in international markets. 

Thank you for the opportunity to submit these comments for the hearing record. 

Sincerely,

DENNIS ENGELHARD, 

President,

United States Dry Bean Council. 

SUBMITTED STATEMENT BY KEN O. KECK, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, FLORIDA

DEPARTMENT OF CITRUS

The Importance of Market Access Program (MAP) Funding to the Florida 

Citrus Industry 

We commend the Subcommittee on Rural Development, Research, Biotechnology, 

and Foreign Agriculture for holding a hearing to review market promotion and development programs administered by USDA’s Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS). 

We appreciate the opportunity to share information about the importance of Market 

Access Program (MAP) funding to the Florida citrus industry and respectfully request that this statement be made part of the official hearing record. 

The Florida Department of Citrus (FDOC), a FAS cooperator, is an executive 

agency of Florida government having the statutory mandate to ‘‘protect the health 

and welfare, and stabilize and protect the citrus industry of the State.’’

The FDOC represents the interests of the entire Florida citrus industry, which includes all geographic regions and organizations involved in the growing, packing, 

processing, shipping and selling of fresh and processed grapefruit, orange, and specialty citrus products. That representation includes approximately 45 citrus packinghouses and 20 citrus processing plants, and over 8,000 growers, many of whom are 

small family operations. It is especially the small family growers that are dependent 

on the FDOC’s promotional efforts for reliable market movement and strong conVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:20 Jun 07, 2011 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 6621 Sfmt 6621 I:\DOCS\112-09\65893.TXT BRIAN

11209023.eps
81

sumer demand. Without the FDOC’s consistent and steadfast marketing efforts over 

the years, many of the smaller family operations would not exist today. 

The FDOC has been involved in the world market since its inception in 1935, and 

has had a very successful relationship with FAS as a participant in the Targeted 

Export Assistance (TEA) program since 1986–1987 and the Market Access Program 

(MAP) since the early 1990s. Despite global involvement for nearly 75 years, the 

Florida citrus industry’s international business did not truly develop until the 

FDOC’s participation in the FAS programs. 

Today, the Florida grapefruit industry is dependent on international trade for its 

survival. In the mid-1980s, only about 35 percent of Florida’s fresh grapefruit crop 

was exported. In the last five years, the overwhelming majority (over 65 percent) 

of the fresh crop was exported. Similarly, grapefruit juice exports in the mid-1980s 

comprised less than 10 percent of the total business; today over 35 percent of Florida’s grapefruit juice production is exported. Florida is now recognized as the world 

leader in fresh grapefruit and grapefruit juice exports. This would not have been 

possible without FAS support. 

Eliminating or reducing funding for MAP in the face of continued subsidized foreign competition would put the Florida citrus grower and workers at a substantial 

competitive disadvantage. In recent years, the European Union and other foreign 

competitors devoted considerable resources on various market development activities to promote their exports of agricultural products. A significant portion of this 

is carried out in Europe, which is a vital market for Florida citrus products. 

In addition to its market growth since the inception of the TEA program, Florida 

is considered by the international trade and foreign consumers as the premium supplier of citrus products. This position is verified annually in tracking studies conducted in countries where the FDOC executes programs. The premium positioning, 

created through marketing programs funded by MAP dollars, has allowed Florida 

exporters to price their products at a premium to competition. Pricing above foreign 

competition provides the more than 8,000 Florida growers with the opportunity to 

optimize returns on their crops, hence assuring long-term viability for the citrus industry. This is critical to an industry that employs more than 76,000 people and 

provides a $9 billion annual impact to the State of Florida. 

Because unemployment is of such critical concern to our nation, and is so acute 

in Florida today, we have performed an analysis of the employment directly attributable to the continued full funding of the MAP program, by selected Florida Congressional Districts. This analysis reveals that today almost 1,500 jobs throughout 

the citrus growing region of Florida rely directly on the approximate $5 million provided by MAP to the Florida Department of Citrus. 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide information to the Subcommittee. On 

behalf of the Florida citrus industry, we ask that the MAP and other vital FAS programs be sustained to help ensure the competitiveness of American agricultural producers in the increasingly competitive global marketplace. 

Respectfully submitted,

KEN O. KECK,

Executive Director,

Florida Department of Citrus.


11209024.eps
82

CHARTS


11209012.eps 11209013.eps
83


11209014.eps 11209015.eps
84


11209016.eps 11209017.eps
85


11209018.eps 11209019.eps
86


11209020.eps 11209021.eps
87

SUBMITTED LETTER BY CHILES WILSON, PRESIDENT, RIVERMAID TRADING COMPANY

April 15, 2011

Subcommittee on Rural Development, Research, Biotechnology, and Foreign Agriculture, House Committee on Agriculture, 

Washington, D.C.

Dear Members of the Subcommittee,

Thank you for this opportunity to indicate our strong support for U.S. agricultural 

export programs such as the Market Access Program (MAP). As President of 

Rivermaid Trading Company, I have seen firsthand the impact that MAP funding 

has had on our company and the California pear industry as a whole. 

Due to a variety of factors, including high input costs and declines in demand for 

pears, the California pear industry has struggled in the domestic market in the past 

several years. MAP funding granted to the California Pear Advisory Board (CPAB) 

has allowed pear shippers such as Rivermaid to expand export markets and continue to thrive. 

CPAB has used MAP and industry funds to conduct a very successful marketing 

program in Canada. Without the support of MAP funding, the industry’s small and 

family businesses would not have the resources to aggressively promote their pears 

in the Canadian market. By pooling industry resources and leveraging MAP assistance, California pear shippers have been able to maintain a strong presence in Canada. In 2010, Rivermaid exported 1,992 tons of pears worth $1,872,552 to Canada 

in part due to the marketing support provided by the MAP program. 

Mexico is also an important market for the California pear industry, and one 

where MAP funding is equally important. Despite setbacks for the industry related 

to Mexico’s retaliatory tariffs on U.S. pears, MAP grants have allowed CPAB to continue working with retailers to put on successful promotions to increase California 

pear sales. Rivermaid shipped $1,132,145 worth of pears to Mexico in 2010. 

As these examples demonstrate, MAP plays a vital role in assisting California’s 

pear farmers to market and export their products abroad. With approximately 19% 

of the California fresh pear crop going to foreign markets, Rivermaid Trading Company and other industry members depend on the programs that MAP supports. The 

program is a shining example of a government-industry partnership that results in 

solid, noticeable returns for U.S. agricultural producers and the rural communities 

that they sustain. 

Another important program is the Technical Assistance for Specialty Crops 

(TASC) grant, which provides the California pear industry with a way to respond 

quickly when new technical trade issues arise. Sanitary and phytosanitary issues 

are increasingly being used as trade barriers around the world, and the TASC program has been used to provide the California specialty crop industry with the information, research, and systems needed to address these issues and keep export markets open. TASC is a welcome source of support, especially considering the number 

of invasive pests that have become established in California in the past few years. 

The program is a valuable resource that allows the California pear industry to fight 

against and eliminate technical trade barriers that would otherwise significantly restrict trade. 

I realize that in this time of tight budgets, Congress is looking for places to cut 

programs. However, the value of the MAP and TASC programs and the difference 

they make to Rivermaid and other U.S. agricultural producers’ bottom line cannot 

be overstated. I urge you to continue funding these agricultural export programs at 

the maximum levels provided for in the farm bill. 

Thank you again for considering my comments on this important matter. 

Sincerely,

CHILES WILSON, President,

Rivermaid Trading Company. 

SUBMITTED STATEMENT BY AMERICAN SEED TRADE ASSOCIATION

Chairman Johnson and Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity 

to provide a statement for the record supporting the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) cooperator programs and their effectiveness on expanding exports 


11209022.eps
88

of U.S. agricultural products. On behalf of the American Seed Trade Association 

(ASTA) and its more than 700 members, we are pleased to provide comment to the 

Committee regarding the importance of these programs and the American seed industry’s participation in them. 

Who We Are 

Founded in 1883 and located in Alexandria, VA, ASTA is one of the most established trade organizations in the United States. Our membership is involved in production and distribution, plant breeding and related industries around the globe. As 

an authority on plant germplasm, ASTA advocates science and policy issues important to the industry. 

ASTA’s mission is to be an effective voice of action in all matters concerning the 

development, marketing and movement of seed, associated products and services 

throughout the world. ASTA promotes the development of better seed to produce 

better crops for a better quality of life. Our members represent all areas of the seed 

industry—from alfalfa to zucchini and range in size from small and medium regional seed companies, to large multi-nationals. ASTA members develop and market 

seed produced through conventional plant breeding, organic and modern biotechnology techniques. 

Ninety-two percent of ASTA’s active members are small businesses that report annual sales of less than $16 million. Without ASTA’s efforts overseas, supported 

by cooperator program funding, many of these small- to medium-sized companies 

would not have a representative in key markets. Company participation and access 

through the programs result in jobs at the local level, increased global sales and 

profitability. 

Importance of Seed 

The U.S. seed industry is one of the most dynamic in the world. It is also increasingly subject to the forces of globalization. The U.S. seed industry has a commercial 

value of approximately $12 billion. With more than 60,000 varieties of planting 

seed, the United States is the largest and most diverse planting seed market in the 

world. 

An important breeding and technology center for the global seed industry, the 

United States attracts the largest and most viable seed companies from around the 

globe. The seed industry is poised to continue to invest a large share of its revenue 

in research and development in techniques such as genetic engineering and traditional and marker assisted breeding to develop beneficial novel traits and improved 

germplasm. In the seed industry, there has been a shift in global research expenditures from the public sector to the private sector. Private expenditures during the 

past two decades have outpaced those of the public sector. This trend was brought 

about by such factors as increased return from planting seed exports, improved intellectual property rights protection, and the entry of life science companies into the 

planting seed industry. This trend benefits the U.S. farmer, agricultural commodity 

groups, food and feed industries. This is especially true for members of the seed industry, where the overwhelming majority of seed companies are small and medium 

in size and resources. 

With the global commercial market for planting seed estimated at $38.5 billion, 

the U.S. market is estimated to be 30 percent of the global market. The domestic 

share of U.S. seed exported is equal to approximately $1.25 billion which is approximately 10 percent of the overall value of the U.S. seed industry. 

A number of factors are needed to support export growth including:

• International regulations that promote the movement of seed

• Improved global economic conditions

• Liberalized government agricultural and trade policies

• Global acceptance of biotechnology and science based regulations

• Bilateral and multilateral free trade agreements

• Adoption and enforcement of intellectual property rights

• Elimination of phytosanitary constraints to trade

• Science based policies and regulations

• Better understanding for how seed moves globally

• Increased demand and familiarity of U.S. cultivars and seed technology

In many emerging markets, it is estimated that formal seed commerce accounts 

for only 10–20 percent of their total market with the remaining 80–90 percent supplied by the non-commercial or informal market (i.e., farmer saved seed). The global 

market for seed still shows great potential for future introduction of improved U.S. 

89

varieties. However, the implementation of robust intellectual property regulations, 

particularly in emerging markets around the globe, is necessary for the widespread 

introduction of these new and improved varieties. 

As a Cooperator of the USDA’s Foreign Market Development (FMD) and Market 

Access (MAP) programs, ASTA has been involved in export promotion and development activities for more than 50 years. ASTA does not have an overseas staff, which 

means the association and its members rely heavily on the USDA-Foreign Agricultural Services’ (FAS) offices overseas. ASTA has developed a cooperative and complimentary relationship with FAS posts to achieve U.S. seed industry and USDA objectives in priority markets. 

Seed exports continue to track higher and as a Cooperator, ASTA has utilized cooperator program funding for activities that have reinforced this upward trend.

Export Year U.S. Exports ($) World Trade ($) 

2006 879,680,000 3,993,838,493 

2007 1,019,679,000 4,033,776,878

2008 1,277,310,000 4,074,114,646 

2009 1,150,403,000 4,114,855,733

2010 1,253,484,375 * 4,156,004,351

Estimate. 

How ASTA Directs Cooperator Funding 

ASTA receives approximately $350,000 between MAP and FMD programs. With 

this budget, ASTA operates programs and activities in five priority markets (Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, China, and India). In addition, three regional markets (The 

Americas, Asia Pacific, and Africa) are targeted. Key issues include intellectual 

property rights, phytosanitary trade barriers and Adventitious Presence/Low-level 

Presence in seed. Without cooperator program funding, the seed industry’s efforts 

to expand U.S. seed exports and business development would be markedly reduced. 

The seed industry is unique in that it is a highly regulated industry worldwide. 

Utilization of the MAP and FMD programs allows ASTA to address resulting impediments to the international movement of seed. The focus of ASTA’s export promotion activities has been primarily focused on six areas:

• International organizational meetings to promote trade in seed and seed technology worldwide and enhancements of intellectual property rights

• Incoming/outgoing trade missions for international consultation and discussions 

designed to overcome unfair trade practices and addressing phytosanitary 

issues affecting U.S. seed exports

• Exploratory trade missions designed to collect market intelligence and foster 

commercial relationships for U.S. seed companies

• Mutually beneficial programs of technical assistance and capacity building designed to encourage seed regulatory and policy reform in less developed or 

emerging seed markets worldwide

• Viable framework and system promotion for trade in biotechnology products

• International agricultural and seed trade policy specifically focused on intellectual property rights protection and phytosanitary regulations 

Measuring Success 

In 2010–2011, several key accomplishments were recorded as a result of ASTA’s 

direct participation in the cooperator programs. These specific success stories highlight the diversity of the seed industry, the global nature of agriculture and new 

opportunities for seed exports. 

Mexico’s NOM 078 Regulation for Sorghum Ergot Repealed 

On Dec.14, 2010 Mexico’s counterpart to USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) advised that the final steps to deregulate sorghum ergot were 

complete. For U.S. companies exporting sorghum seed to Mexico, this victory was 

a long and hard fought battle. The action, the last step in a three year effort, was 

well received by U.S. companies that ship more than $5 million of sorghum seed 

annually to Mexico. ASTA’s ability to direct cooperator funds to the effort complemented APHIS’s efforts via extended discussions with government officials and 

Mexico’s seed trade association. 

Korean Market for Radish Seed Re-Opened 

In 2011, a small seed company was experiencing difficulties exporting radish seed 

to Korea, due to the radish yellow edge virus (RYEV). Although the company had 

90

followed all protocols for meeting Korean import requirements, RYEV had never officially been communicated to the United States by Korea as a quarantine pest. For 

its part, ASTA began directing efforts and learned that this particular virus was 

common and most likely already present in Korea. By coordinating testing protocols 

and industry intelligence, APHIS and ASTA worked with the Korean government 

to lift its testing requirement for the virus. The market for radish seed has been 

re-opened and the company immediately shipped four loads of seed, worth nearly 

$300,000. The company is planning to ship an additional $500,000 of radish seed 

for the remainder of 2011. 

Argentina Intellectual Property Rights Outreach Project 

The most valuable asset of the seed industry is its intellectual property. ASTA 

utilized cooperator funds in Argentina to conduct outreach and education to industry stakeholders and growers. The message focused on the value of seed by highlighting research investment and the commitment of the seed industry to bring new 

and improved varieties to the market each year for growers. Moreover, advancing 

and acknowledging intellectual property rights was a shared responsibility. The goal 

of the project was to evaluate whether or not access to information explaining the 

importance of intellectual property rights for seed and innovation had any effect on 

growers opinion and their perception of purchasing legal seed. The conclusion was 

that grower awareness significantly increased and that innovation is better understood. 

U.S./EU Bilateral Agreement on Seed Re-Export 

Re-export of seed continues to be a major challenge for the seed industry. Every 

time seed is moved from one country to another, it must meet the phytosanitary import requirements of the next country of import. In most cases, if the phytosanitary 

measures were not conducted in the country of origin where the seed was produced, 

the seed cannot be certified by the country of re-export as meeting the phytosanitary 

import requirements of the next country. This issue caused many delays and lost 

markets for numerous seed companies that move seed internationally. ASTA worked 

closely with USDA’s APHIS to negotiate bilateral agreements between countries 

with significant seed re-export problems. Due to years of APHIS and ASTA diligence, an agreement with the European Union is expected to impact more than $50 

million in seed trade annually. APHIS continues to pursue, with ASTA’s support, 

agreements with other countries where re-export remains an issue, including Mexico, Chile, and Argentina. 

2010 China-U.S. Seed Legal System Conference 

ASTA has been working in China and with the Ministry of Agriculture for a number of years. In 2010, a conference utilizing cooperator funds was held in Beijing 

to discuss China’s seed law and ways to implement revisions and improvements 

using the United States’ Federal Seed Act and state seed laws as models. In addition, presentations and discussions included the United States’ seed certification 

process and the use of licenses and contracts in the U.S. seed industry. ASTA views 

these steps as incremental and key to addressing more uniform, harmonized, and 

transparent views and policies on intellectual property rights for U.S. and global 

seed developers and enhancing grower awareness. 

Brazil Normative 36 Amended, Seed Markets Kept Open 

On Dec. 30, 2010, Brazil published with no comment period, Normative 36, which 

lays out new, highly restrictive phytosanitary import requirements for 118 different 

species of seeds. Impacting 50 countries that export seeds to Brazil, neither the U.S. 

seed industry, nor the World Trade Organization or U.S. government was informed 

prior to publication of the normative. The collective value of the U.S. commercial 

seed market in Brazil exceeds $10 million annually. ASTA partnered with USDA 

through FAS and APHIS to address this issue. While the restrictive normative has 

been amended for one year, ASTA continues to work diligently with U.S. government as well as ASTA counterparts in Brazil, the Brazil Seed Association 

(ABRASEM) and Brazil’s Ministry of Agriculture for a long term resolution so that 

seed exports to Brazil will not be further interrupted. 

Conclusion 

These examples illustrate a number of successes that would not have been possible if the cooperator programs were not in place. Members of the American seed 

industry have benefitted greatly from the cooperator programs and USDA’s leadership via the FMD and MAP programs. Through targeted programs and seed industry efforts, markets have been enhanced, identified and seed is moving. 

Phytosanitary issues are being addressed and incremental progress continues to be 

91

made. ASTA firmly believes that the cooperator programs better position the U.S. 

seed industry to compete in the global marketplace. Agriculture’s foundation is the 

seed and the U.S. seed industry is poised to continue making headway throughout 

the world. U.S. agriculture depends on quality seed and each year the U.S. seed industry strives to maintain its position as the global leader. The commercial value 

of that position is approximately $12 billion and growing. 

Thank you for this opportunity to share with the Committee examples of ASTA’s 

work through the USDA cooperator programs, not only for the seed industry, but 

U.S. agriculture in general. ASTA’s motto—first the seed—confirms the relevance 

and role of quality seed, here at home and around the world. We maintain that the 

cooperator programs add value to U.S. agriculture, provide dividends to the U.S. 

taxpayer and support small and medium sized seed companies at the local level. We 

urge the Congress, as budget discussions continue, to support the cooperator programs at USDA. In doing so, U.S. agriculture benefits and, the U.S. seed industry 

prospers. 

SUBMITTED STATEMENT BY U.S. APPLE ASSOCIATION

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, exports play a critical role in the 

economic vitality of the American apple industry. Promotion programs established 

under the farm bill are vital tools to help maintain and increase overseas apple 

sales in the face of fierce foreign competition. Under these programs, U.S. apple 

growers partner with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to increase consumption of U.S. apples overseas and capture markets from foreign producers. 

American apples are grown commercially in over 30 states, from Michigan to 

North Carolina and Washington to Maine. Our $2.2 billion crop is produced on approximately 350,000 acres. U.S. apple exports reached almost $800 million in 2009, 

or 40 percent of our total crop value. This means that over $1 in every $3 in apple 

revenue comes from exports. Overseas apple sales are critical for our orchards and 

the entire apple industry. 

The U.S. Apple Association appreciates this Committee’s support to authorize and 

fund various important export promotion programs in the 2008 Farm Bill. The Market Access Program, the Technical Assistance for Specialty Crops Program and the 

Emerging Markets Program are utilized by the apple industry in partnership with 

USDA to grow foreign demand and maintain a strong marketplace for our fruit. 

Looking to the future, we believe our strongest market growth potential lies in the 

export arena, especially in developing economies as per capita incomes increase and 

diets improve. However, we face stiff competition from foreign producers to capture 

these market opportunities. 

USDA’s promotion programs help level the playing field as we compete in the export market against countries such as China and Chile that have lower production 

costs. U.S. apple growers are confident in their ability to compete around the world 

based on quality, reliability, and often brand identity. However, they cannot compete against the treasuries of foreign governments which support export promotion 

and sales. For example in China, which grows half the world’s apples, the government has encouraged aggressive exports with the benefit of an undervalued currency, the renminbi. This makes imports more expensive in China and Chinese exports less expensive in foreign markets. China’s lower production costs for apples 

are largely attributable to an abundant, inexpensive supply of unskilled labor in 

rural areas relative to the labor-scarce United States. (Both the renminbi and labor 

factors are cited in the recent report, ‘‘China’s Agricultural Trade: Competitive Conditions and Effects on U.S. Exports,’’ (http://www.usitc.gov/publications/332/

pub4219.pdf) USITC Publication 4219, March 2011.) USDA’s promotion programs 

are important to help counteract the effects of such foreign assistance. 

The Market Access Program (MAP) provides critical funding, more than 

matched by industry contributions, to promote American apple consumption around 

the world. Without MAP, individual apple growers would not have the financial resources or organizational support for this essential foreign market development and 

promotion. The apple industry is made up of many individual small businesses, from 

growers and packers to shippers and exporters. The MAP program provides a catalyst for them to work together collectively in partnership with USDA to grow markets overseas. 

The Technical Assistance for Specialty Crops program (TASC) complements 

the MAP program because it helps our industry reduce foreign sanitary, 

phytosanitary and technical barriers that prohibit or threaten apple exports. TASC 

is a nimble, quick-response program which enables apple growers to reduce these 

92

trade barriers in order to maintain access to current markets and open new ones 

where they can utilize MAP. 

The Emerging Markets Program (EMP) is designed to develop and promote exports of U.S. agricultural products to low and middle income emerging markets. 

EMP has opened the door for apple growers to initiate MAP programs in new markets. The program has enabled apple growers to conduct market research essential 

to understanding new potential customers and in-country market opportunities. 

MAP, TASC and EMP yield tangible and valuable results for the U.S. apple industry and the overall U.S. economy. Several examples illustrate how they have 

helped the nation’s small apple businesses successfully gain long-term export customers. 

TASC and MAP Boost Apple Exports to Mexico 

TASC allowed apple shippers from Michigan, Virginia and California to bring the 

required Mexican inspectors to each state, to review the cold treatment facilities and 

the treatments undertaken for each apple sold to Mexico. Simultaneously, the TASC 

program has funded efforts for these shippers to bring in technical experts and to 

work with APHIS and our Mexican counterparts to find ways to reduce this onerous 

requirement. Without TASC funding, growers and shippers in Michigan, Virginia 

and California would lose important export sales and contacts that they have spent 

years to develop. Between 2003 and 2010, these exports have accounted for well 

over $6 million, all exports that would not have occurred without TASC and MAP 

funding. 

MAP funding enabled Washington apple growers, in partnership with the Northwest pear and California table grape industries, to conduct a month-long promotion 

last fall in Mexico with the popular children’s television show ‘‘Lazytown.’’ Mexico 

is a major market for all three fruits and holds strong potential for additional 

growth. This promotion was funded under MAP’s Global-Based Initiative program 

which encourages collaboration among cooperator groups who have a similar project 

goal. 

The Lazytown promotion resulted in an historic first-time partnership between 

the Mexican government, USDA and U.S. cooperator groups. Lazytown is a popular 

children’s show that airs to an estimated 500 million homes in 128 countries worldwide, including Mexico. The theme of every episode of ‘‘Lazytown’’ is designed to motivate kids to make healthy lifestyle choices. This is done through ‘‘leading by example.’’ The main character (and healthy superhero) eats ‘‘sports candy’’ (fruits and 

vegetables) to get energy to overcome the lazy plots and schemes of the show’s villain to make the kids of ‘‘Lazytown’’ lazy. The Mexican Secretary of Health endorsed 

this Lazytown project and provided an umbrella under which to incorporate national 

and regional Mexican retailers. 

The promotion incorporated media coverage promoting health with Lazytown’s 

superhero, along with wide in-store sampling, superhero store events, and promotional materials featuring the Lazytown characters, and Washington apples, 

Northwest pears and California table grapes. 

Additional funding has been granted to continue the Lazytown promotion in winter 2011–12. 

As a result of this promotion, Washington apple exports increased 29% in November 2010 compared to the previous season. In value, exports increased 38% over 

2009–10 for a total of $13.5 million (an increase of $3.7 million). Retailers experienced strong sales lift, and the promotion strengthened business relationships with 

the apple industry.

Importantly, this promotion yielded successful results despite imposition 

by Mexico of a new 20 percent duty on imports of U.S. apples last August 

as the fall harvest was starting. Without the tariff, Mexican consumers 

could have enjoyed even more U.S. apples.

EMP and MAP: India Seen as Key Future Market for Apple Exports from 

Pennsylvania, New York and Michigan 

The apple industry used EMP funds to conduct market research in India. An incountry representative was then hired to help identify appropriate targets and educate Indian apple importers and retailers about the quality and varieties of the apples grown on the East Coast of the U.S. In 2009–10, eastern apple shippers developed a strong business in India with sales in excess of $2 million. These shippers 

hope to expand this new market by offering exports off of the East Coast that are 

competitive with other routes. Indian interest has been strong for apples from 

Michigan, New York and Pennsylvania. All of this interest and sales can be directly 

traced back to the impact of the EMP-funded research, initial market development 

activities, and MAP-funded trade show presence and programs to promote apples at 

93

retail and wholesale outlets in India. These businesses in Pennsylvania, Michigan 

and New York view the Indian market as a key element to their future businesses 

and long-term success. 

MAP: Middle East Market Grows for Washington Apples 

Using MAP funds, retail promotions and merchandising activities were implemented by the Washington apple industry in the United Arab Emirates and Saudi 

Arabia in the current marketing year. As a result, exports of apples expanded significantly to the two markets. From September 1, 2010 through March 31, 2011, 

Washington apple exports rose by more than one third in volume, compared to the 

same period last year. Export value increased 32 percent, or $9.1 million.

2009–10 2010–11

No. of Cartons Estimated $ 

Value No. of Cartons Estimated $ Value 

UAE 972,073 $18.5 million 1,297,568 $23.9 million 

Saudi Arabia 635,431 $12.1 million 861,973 $15.8 million 

Promotional activities reinforced the quality image of Washington apples and created awareness, visibility and demand for new apple varieties, namely Gala and 

Fuji, which registered record high export growth this season (Gala and Fujis surging 

75.4% and 17.7%, respectively). 

Despite the competition from Europe, Southern Hemisphere suppliers and Lebanon and Syria, Washington apples are maintaining upward sales momentum. 

TASC: Reducing Technical Barriers for Apple Exports to Mexico 

Mexico is the single largest export market for U.S. apple exports. Consequently, 

the apple industry must address technical trade issues with the Mexican government to help ensure that the market remains accessible for growers, shippers and 

exporters. 

In 2009, TASC funded projects to produce pest information and educate Mexican 

plant quarantine officials about the Pacific Northwest fruit industry, including apples. One program provided for survey trapping for the Oriental Fruit Moth, as required by Mexico’s Director General de Sanidad Vegetal (DGSV), from spring to the 

flight of the final generation. The trapping was done in Idaho and Washington to 

verify population levels of OFM previously reported to Mexico which were based on 

trapping done a number of years ago. Another program funded an on-site 

verification visit of Mexican plant quarantine officials during the apple growing season to review conditions in registered export orchards and participating packinghouses. 

TASC: Providing MRL Data for Foreign Markets 

TASC has funded the establishment and continued operation of a vital database 

of international maximum residue limits (MRL’s) for specialty crops. The apple industry uses this database to verify specific MRL requirements in foreign markets. 

Produce that does not meet the MRL standards of an overseas country may not be 

exported there. EPA has participated as a financial partner to support this project. 

The MRL database for specialty crops is recognized by the U.S. Government, commodity groups and pesticide registrants as having the most accurate MRL information available. 

Conclusion 

MAP, TASC and EMP are important USDA programs which yield direct increases 

in export sales for U.S. apple growers, help maintain jobs for their employees and 

support their rural communities. These programs help growers compete against foreign producers aided by overseas governments. 

In partnership with USDA, apple growers are committed to succeeding in the export market in order to build strong future for their family businesses. To remain 

globally competitive, the American apple industry supports strong MAP and other 

promotion programs as part of an aggressive trade title in the next Farm Bill. 

SUBMITTED STATEMENT BY U.S. WHEAT ASSOCIATES; NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF

WHEAT GROWERS

The free and fair flow of trade is essential to U.S. wheat farmers as roughly half 

of the wheat they produce is exported each year. In the most recent full marketing 

year (2009/10), the United States exported 24.0 million metric tons (MMT) of wheat, 

94

roughly 40 percent of production. Also in 2009/10, the United States accounted for 

nearly 18 percent of global exports as world wheat exports were estimated at 135.8 

MMT. In 2010/11, U.S. wheat exports are expected to reach 34.5 MMT, representing 

58 percent of domestic production and 28 percent of world wheat trade. 

The National Association of Wheat Growers (NAWG) was founded more than 60 

years ago by producers to work together for the common good of the industry. 

Today, NAWG works with its 21 state associations and many coalition partners to 

unite the wheat industry on issues as diverse as federal farm policy, environmental 

regulation and the future commercialization of biotechnology in wheat. 

U.S. Wheat Associates (USW), the wheat industry’s export market development 

organization, conducts training and provides information to customers in more than 

100 countries on behalf of America’s wheat producers. USW’s activities are made 

possible by producer check off dollars managed by 18 state wheat commissions and 

cost-share funding from the Market Access Program (MAP) and Foreign Market Development (FMD) program administered by USDA’s Foreign Agricultural Service. 

USW works on behalf of American wheat producers to increase wheat exports by 

collaborating with foreign government officials and industry representatives to address market constraints and opportunities. 

USW and NAWG appreciate the opportunity to comment for the record on the importance of market development programs and their role in agricultural trade. 

Wheat has benefitted from FMD and MAP for many years and was one of the first 

associations to utilize the FMD program after its creation in the 1950s. U.S. wheat 

producers understand the importance of exports to their profitability and contribute 

roughly 50 percent of USW’s promotional expenses through direct contributions and 

in-kind support to match government program funds. These funds support a network of 15 overseas offices as well as the promotional activities. 

USW staff presence in these markets allows for routine contact with overseas customers to educate them on the process and benefits of buying U.S. wheat, to identify 

and promote U.S. wheat to potential new customers and to follow-up on previous 

purchases to ensure a positive experience from start to finish. The routine on-theground contact provides assurance, creates confidence and is a key factor for continuing a high level of U.S. wheat exports in the face of competition from a number 

of wheat exporting nations. 

USW promotional activities funded by MAP and FMD are multi-faceted. One on 

one meetings through trade servicing educates customers on the marketing system, 

qualities and contracting of U.S. wheat and creates comfort and confidence in navigating the complex U.S. system. Technical assistance to properly mill and bake U.S. 

wheat ensures that the full value of U.S. wheat is extracted from each purchase. 

USW routinely sponsors trade teams of customers to the United States for a firsthand experience in understanding the various assurances built into our marketing 

system. In addition, customers routinely attend courses at partner institutions such 

as the International Grains Program at Kansas State University, the Northern 

Crops Institute at North Dakota State University and the Wheat Marketing Center 

in Portland, Oregon. 

The increased quantity of wheat exports to Nigeria is an example of the remarkable success of the MAP and FMD export promotion programs. USW worked collaboratively with new market players to educate them on the U.S. wheat marketing system and to help develop local products made from U.S. wheat. These efforts resulted 

in the importation of all six U.S. wheat classes and to Nigeria becoming the top U.S. 

wheat customer in 2009/10. USW efforts resulted in loyalty by Nigerian millers and 

the United States maintains an 80 percent market share, despite increased price 

competition from Canada and the Black Sea region. 

Agriculture is a bright spot in the U.S. economy and agricultural trade is unique 

compared to traditional goods. Agriculture consistently maintains a trade surplus, 

thanks in part to cooperator activities funded through FMD and MAP programs. 

USW and NAWG are proud of the success already accomplished by USDA/FAS as 

well as the relationship with USTR in overcoming trade and technical barriers. The 

structure within USDA and the communication between intertwined agencies such 

as the Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS), the Animal Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), the Federal Grain Inspection Service (FGIS) and others facilitates the 

efficient export of goods as well as the timely resolutions of trade disruptions. The 

special trade issues that agriculture faces needs to be an important consideration 

in any reorganization plan of the government’s trade-related agencies. 

Attached is a fact sheet specific to wheat on the FMD and MAP programs to illustrate the impressive benefits of USDA’s market development programs, and their 

admirable returns on investment. We encourage Congress to support the Obama Administration’s fiscal year 2012 budget request and fully fund both programs at $34.5 

million and $200 million, respectively. As already proven, these relatively small inVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:20 Jun 07, 2011 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00098 Fmt 6621 Sfmt 6621 I:\DOCS\112-09\65893.TXT BRIAN
95

vestments by the American people will continue to create impressive returns to U.S. 

farmers, U.S. agriculture and the U.S. economy. 

ATTACHMENT

Fact Sheet 

Market Access Program, Foreign Market Development Benefits 

January 2011

The Market Access Program (MAP) and Foreign Market Development (FMD) program administered by USDA’s Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) form the core of 

a highly successful partnership between nonprofit U.S. agricultural trade associations, farmer cooperatives, nonprofit state-regional trade groups, small businesses, 

and USDA to share the costs of overseas market development efforts. These programs continue to have a positive and significant impact on U.S. agricultural exports. MAP and FMD are crucial to the U.S. wheat industry to maintain sales and 

market share in an increasingly competitive trade environment.

By any measure, MAP and FMD are good government programs with:

• excellent returns, that actually grow with investment, to the government and 

farmer cooperators;

• proven potential to create American jobs and help the rural economy grow;

• efficient, effective administration;

• direct contributions that improve conditions for the private sector to increase 

exports;

• benefits to the entire agricultural supply chain from wheat farmers to the longshoremen who load wheat on vessels for export. 

Excellent Return on Investment 

An independent study conducted by IHS Global Insight, Inc., for USDA in 2010 

found that between 2002 and 2009, the incremental investment in market development increased U.S. export market share by 1.3 percentage points and the annual 

value of U.S. agricultural exports by $6.1 billion. For every additional $1 expended 

by government and industry on market development, U.S. food and agricultural exports increased by $35. 

These results are consistent with the conclusions of a January 2010 economic 

analysis of wheat export promotion showing U.S. wheat farmers received $23 in net 

revenue for every $1 they invested in export promotion between 2000 and 2007. The 

study also showed that every $1 invested by U.S. wheat farmers and the government returns $115 to the U.S. economy.

$1 investment

= $35 increase in exports

= $23 to Farmers

= $115 to U.S. Economy 

An Effective Public-Private Partnership 

Industry funds currently represent almost 60% of total annual market development spending, up from about 45% in 1996 and roughly 30% in 1991, which demonstrates farmer commitment to the effort (Source USDA). Like other cooperators, 

U.S. wheat farmers are strongly committed to this partnership. Wheat commissions 

from 19 states contributed an estimated $12.8 million in checkoff funds and in-kind 

services in 2009/2010 to qualify for MAP and FMD activities conducted by U.S. 

Wheat Associates. These cost-share programs provide a critical incentive to invest 

in U.S. grain export market development. Without them, it is highly unlikely that 

there would be sufficient private funds to maintain a strategic, coordinated export 

promotion program in the increasingly competitive global wheat market. 

MAP and FMD Contribute to Jobs at Home and Capacity Building Abroad 

U.S. agricultural exports totaled nearly $109 billion in FY10. Since MAP was created in 1985, U.S. agricultural exports increased by nearly 300 percent at their peak 

in 2008 (Source USDA). USDA estimates that every $1 billion in agricultural exports create 8,000 jobs. Thus more than 800,000 Americans have jobs that depend 

on these exports thanks in part to MAP, FMD and related programs. We can expect 

increased demand for agricultural products as the global economy recovers, which 

96

reinforces the need for such valuable programs as MAP and FMD that help create, 

expand, and maintain markets for U.S. agricultural products.

‘‘. . . more than 

800,000 Americans 

have jobs that depend on these exports thanks in 

part to MAP, FMD 

and related programs.’’

The benefits of export market development extend beyond U.S. shores, however. 

Nigeria imported more U.S. wheat than any other country in 2009/10. Since 2001 

when USW opened a technical service office in Lagos supported by FMD and MAP 

funds, average annual wheat sales to Nigeria have doubled to almost 3 million metric tons. Nigerian flour milling executives say wheat export promotion is helping 

build economic capacity in their country. One senior executive said: ‘‘MAP and other 

programs provide training for our employees and if we can do more together, the 

potential for significant growth is there.’’ Noting that USW uses MAP funds for 

technical training that helps build new wheat-based food markets, the CEO of Nigeria’s Honeywell Flour said: ‘‘Whatever we have achieved, the foundation has been 

laid by U.S. Wheat Associates. We know that USW is funded by farmers and USDA. 

It is money well-spent.’’

MAP and FMD Help Counter Subsidized Foreign Competition 

In recent years, the Canadian Wheat Board monopoly seller, the EU, the Cairns 

Group, and other foreign competitors have devoted considerable resources on agricultural export market development activities, a significant portion of which is carried out in the United States. Eliminating or reducing funding for MAP in the face 

of continued subsidized foreign competition will put American farmers and workers 

at a substantial competitive disadvantage. Conversely, maintaining or increasing 

MAP and FMD programs, which are non-trade distorting and not subject to World 

Trade Organization (WTO) disciplines, increases U.S. export competitiveness. 

Funding for FMD is designed to establish an on-the-ground country or regional 

presence, identify new markets and address long-term foreign import constraints 

and export growth opportunities. Yet funding for FMD has been static for many 

years while overseas expenses continue to increase. Like other FAS cooperators, 

U.S. Wheat Associates does all it can to maximize its efficiency and has already 

made significant FMD cuts by consolidating offices and reducing staff. Additional 

funding cuts will force U.S. Wheat Associates to abandon markets with upside potential, an outcome that will only benefit our competitors and hurt American farmers and those whose jobs depend on exports.

Protecting MAP and FMD makes good economic sense. If you want to reduce government spending and increase jobs, cutting MAP and FMD is not 

the way to do it. 

SUBMITTED STATEMENT BY USA RICE FEDERATION

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, the USA Rice Federation 

thanks you very much for this opportunity to submit comments about market-promotion programs (MPP’s) and their effectiveness in expanding exports of U.S. agricultural products. The hearing is very timely and we appreciate you holding it. 

The USA Rice Federation strongly supports market-promotion programs and the 

highly productive role played by the Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) in implementing them. As an active participant in the U.S. Agricultural Export Development Council, an organization to promote U.S. agricultural exports, the USA Rice 

Federation works aggressively with other members to advocate authorization of and 

annual funding at farm bill-legislated levels for the Market Access Program (MAP) 

and the Foreign Market Development Program (FMD), the two market-promotion 

programs that we use most frequently and have participated in for many years. 

Exports 

The U.S. rice industry is a key player in the global rice market and the economic 

health of the rice industry is tied to exports. While the United States produces only 

2 percent of global rice output, the United States ranks, in any year, as the third 

97

or fourth largest global exporter and between 45 and 50 percent of the U.S. rice crop 

is exported. 

The United States exports all types and forms of rice: long grain, short grain and 

medium grain in the form of white-milled rice, brown-milled rice, parboiled rice, and 

paddy or rough rice (unprocessed harvested rice). Approximately 2⁄3 of U.S. exports 

are milled rice and the remaining 1⁄3 are rough-rice exports. 

The United States exports rice across the globe, with a major presence in North 

and Central America, Northeast Asia, the European Union, Turkey and the Middle 

East, and Africa. 

In many years, the U.S. rice industry exports a greater portion of production than 

any other major rice exporter and this dependence on trade makes the U.S. rice industry particularly vulnerable to trade disruptions or barriers. As one of the most 

protected and sensitive commodities traded worldwide, market-access obstacles are 

widespread and discourage increased exports of U.S. rice. 

Imports 

On the import side, U.S. tariff protection is minimal, and 15 percent of domestic 

consumption is sourced from imports, largely fragrant rice from Thailand and 

basmati rice from India. Vietnam and China are also import sources. 

Economic Contributions 

U.S. rice production supported 128,000 jobs and more than $34 billion of economic 

output nationally in 2009. Those directly involved in rice exports contributed $6 billion in output and supported more than 14,000 jobs. 

U.S. rice exports support small- to-medium-size enterprises (SME’s):

• According to the 2007 Census of Agriculture (USDA/NASS), there are 10,431 

rice farm operators in the United States (AR—4,602; CA—2,518; LA—1,303; 

MS—621; MO—720; and, TX—667). 100% of these farms would qualify as 

SMEs.

• USA Rice mill membership through the USA Rice Millers’ Association and/or 

USA Rice Council includes 30 mills, representing nearly all U.S. rice milling capacity with mill members in seven states: Arkansas, California, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, and Texas. At least 75% of the mills qualify as 

small/medium-size enterprises.

• The USA Rice Millers’ Association also has 33 associate members, which include 

exporters and allied businesses, an estimated 2⁄3 of which qualify as small/medium-size enterprises.

• The USA Rice Merchants’ Association represents rough-rice merchandisers and 

seedsmen, as well as associated members. The Association has 28 merchant 

members and 11 associate members. Of the total membership, 92 percent qualify as small/medium-size enterprises. 

MAP and FMD 

The Market Access Program and Foreign Market Development Program play key 

roles in helping to promote U.S. rice sales overseas. USA Rice Federation industry 

members spend more than $3 in matching funds for each $1 of FAS funds received. 

By participating in and contributing to the MAP–FMD public-private partnership, 

USA Rice Federation members are able to export rice successfully in a highly-competitive world-rice market and, at the same time, contribute significantly to local, 

state, and national economies. 

The USA Rice Federation uses MAP and FMD funding in over 25 markets to conduct successful export market development initiatives, including Mexico, Turkey, 

Nigeria, and South Korea. 

The USA Rice Federation has used MAP and FMD funds to expand rice exports 

to Mexico, the largest customer for U.S. long-grain rice. Of the rice consumed in 

Mexico, 80% comes from the U.S. U.S. rice sales to Mexico have boomed in recent 

years, reaching $313.4 million in value in 2010, which is nearly double the total export value in 2005. USA Rice export promotions have resulted in per-capita rice consumption doubling in Mexico during the past 25 years, to reach 17 pounds per capita. 

In Turkey, the USA Rice Federation used MAP and FMD funds to organize seminars for the Turkish rice industry and consumer groups to help overcome trade barriers erected by the government (pricing, import licensing, minimum import pricing). 

U.S. rice exports were at record levels in 2010 (428,000 MT), a volume increase of 

866% when compared to 2009 and Turkey is now the third-largest market in value 

and second in volume terms for U.S. rice-export sales. The U.S. rice industry sells 

mostly medium-grain rice, but also exports some long-grain rice to Turkey. 

98

World food supply and price conditions led Nigeria to modify its import regime 

in 2009, reducing tariffs on rice from 85% to 10% or less. In the previous 25 years 

little or no U.S. rice was exported to the country. The USA Rice Federation conducted successful trade-servicing and promotion activities by using MAP and FMD 

funds to re-establish the Nigerian export market. These initiatives resulted in the 

U.S. exporting to Nigeria 75,500 metric tons of long-grain parboiled rice, valued at 

$39.3 million, in calendar year 2010. MAP and FMD funding make possible a further strengthening of Nigeria’s consumer base for U.S. rice exports and the potential 

for Nigeria to serve as an export gateway for U.S. rice into other African markets. 

In 2001, South Korea began importing U.S. rice under its minimum-access WTO 

obligation and channeled the imports into industrial uses under strict government 

control. In 2005, rice imported into South Korea began to enter the country’s consumer market. In 2008, following a FMD-funded USA Rice Federation trade mission 

to bring South Korean buyers to the U.S. to learn about the U.S. rice industry, a 

South Korean retailer developed an online business to purchase U.S.-origin rice. 

Since that time the company’s total online sales of U.S. rice has expanded from less 

than 20 percent to 70 percent and there has been a 60 percent increase in the buyer’s sale of U.S. rice being made to South Korean consumers. The company is now 

ranked as the top U.S. rice sales outlet through online open markets in South 

Korea. 

Conclusion 

U.S. market promotion programs and the federal-private-sector partnership they 

have established are significant trade and economic resources for the nation, its agricultural sector, and, specifically, the U.S. rice industry, to compete in world markets. Equally as important is the fact that to achieve President Barack Obama’s National Export Initiative goal of doubling U.S. exports over five years, USA Rice believes that the upcoming 2012 Farm Bill should emphatically reaffirm Congress’ 

longstanding commitment to market promotion programs by providing additional resources for them. 

MAP and FMD are among the few tools specifically allowed without restriction 

under WTO rules to help American agriculture and American workers remain competitive in a global marketplace that is characterized by subsidized foreign competition. The MAP and FMD programs have been tremendously successful and extremely cost-effective in maintaining and expanding U.S. agricultural exports, protecting and creating American jobs, and strengthening farm income. 

The USA Rice Federation is most appreciative for the opportunity to comment on 

market promotion programs. We look forward to continuing to work with the Subcommittee and the House Agriculture Committee on behalf of MPP’s, in particular 

MAP and FMD, which are the two we use most frequently. If we can assist in any 

other way regarding market promotion programs, please call on us at any time. 

SUBMITTED QUESTIONS

Response from John Brewer, Administrator, Foreign Agricultural Service, 

U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Questions Submitted by Hon. Timothy V. Johnson, a Representative in Congress 

from Illinois 

Question 1. Mr. Brewer, in your written statement you highlighted the fact that 

‘‘participants from all corners of the U.S. agricultural community utilize FAS-administered trade programs.’’ Earlier this year USDA proposed some changes to the MAP 

and FMD programs which seem to place a greater emphasis on funding small and 

medium-sized entities (SME) directly. Given that virtually all of the ultimate recipients or beneficiaries are SME’s, could you clarify exactly what you hope to achieve 

with the proposed program changes? 

Answer. FAS initiated a discussion on possible adjustments to the market development programs in November 2010 with the U.S. Agricultural Export Development 

Council’s (USAEDC) 70+ members to seek their input on strengthening the effectiveness and ensuring the relevancy of the programs. 

USAEDC feedback has informed FAS on program strengths and where programs 

could be strengthened. This feedback will lead to more effective program management that ensures the programs are accessible, connect with the needs of the international market, and operate in a manner that meets regulatory requirements, the 

needs of the stakeholders, and can be accomplished with available FAS resources. 

The possible program adjustments highlight small and medium sized enterprises 

(SMEs), in line with the President’s National Export Initiative (NEI). NEI, in part, 

aims to expose U.S. companies to the benefits of the export market and resources 

99

available to help them take advantage of export opportunities, a goal consistent 

with the objectives of the market development programs. FAS briefed both House 

and Senate agriculture committee staff in early December regarding the proposals 

and solicited their input. 

FAS intends to continue these discussions. Any resulting program changes would 

be thoroughly reviewed with stakeholders and Congressional staffs, gradually implemented, and have a primary goal of sharpening program effectiveness. FAS’s goal 

remains to enhance the effectiveness of program operations, promote the diversity 

of groups participating, improve groups’ performance through better training, promote outreach to SMEs, and ensure administrative efficiencies.

Question 2. Mr. Brewer, USDA has proposed to provide some direct funding to 

small businesses through the MAP program. As you know, these programs are successful in part because of the stringent accountability required of cooperators. FAS 

requires significant accounting and reporting by participants. If this proposal were 

to be implemented, could you please describe how you would avoid losing the efficiencies and accountability gained through partnering with farmer cooperatives, 

state and regional trading groups, and trade associations? 

Answer. FAS raised with USAEDC membership the concept of direct MAP funding to small businesses. After discussion with stakeholders, FAS decided that the 

four State Regional Trade Groups (SRTGs) should continue as the primary outreach 

and program delivery entities to SMEs, on FAS’s behalf. To that end, FAS awarded 

additional program funds to the SRTGs through the 2011 MAP Global Broad-based 

Initiatives program to strengthen SRTG outreach to find and educate new exporters 

on doing business in the international marketplace. In 2010, the SRTGs helped 

more than 700 U.S. companies through the branded program, and many more in 

their generic activities.

Question 3. Mr. Brewer, we have heard concern from industry participants about 

these proposed changes to MAP and FMD. Have you heard these concerns and made 

revisions or proposed any new changes to the original announcement? 

Answer. FAS initiated discussion on concepts to strengthen the market development programs with U.S. Agricultural Export Development Council (USAEDC) 

membership at the November 2010 USAEDC Annual Workshop in Baltimore. FAS 

has heard industry participant’s concerns and, importantly, remains in an ongoing 

dialog with our partners and other stakeholders on ideas for program improvements. 

At this time, there are no decisions that would warrant adjusting program guidelines.

Question 4. Mr. Brewer, you highlighted the extensive presence that FAS has 

throughout the world. Could you describe in greater detail the unique role filled by 

your Foreign Service officers? What is accomplished through in-country interactions, 

that would not be possible just from a desk here in D.C.? 

Answer. Our global network of agricultural attache ́s and locally hired staff identify problems, provide practical solutions, and work to advance opportunities for 

U.S. agriculture and support U.S. foreign policy in the countries in which they work. 

FAS employees overseas provide market information gathered from contacts and 

travel throughout the countries in which they operate; represent USDA in market 

access discussions with foreign governments; partner in market promotion activities 

conducted in-country; facilitate capacity-building and food assistance programs with 

appropriate contacts in country and provide trade servicing for U.S. exporters by explaining the market and the opportunities within. FAS Foreign Service Officers are 

the face of U.S. agriculture overseas, and engage in essential contact-building and 

outreach to promote opportunities, explain U.S. policies and positions, and cultivate 

allies in agricultural fora. 

A critical function that cannot be accomplished from a desk in Washington is resolving agricultural shipment problems through ministry-to-ministry engagement. 

For example, French authorities detained three containers of Florida citrus fruit at 

the port of LeHavre earlier this year due to the suspected presence of citrus canker. 

When the FAS office in Paris discovered that only one out of the three containers 

included fruit from a grove suspected of actually harboring the disease, they presented the evidence to the French Ministry of Agriculture. FAS then worked closely 

with USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service to issue an additional declaration needed for the European Union, which stated that the fruit came from 

groves free of citrus canker. With this new and proper documentation the French 

authorities released 90 percent of the citrus from this shipment as eligible for import, with a value of $100,000. 

In another instance, the FAS office in Algiers intervened to ensure the delivery 

of two blocked shipments of planting seeds after learning that the Algerian Ministry 

100

of Agriculture had not responded to the company’s request for an attestation that 

the shipment was eligible for entry into Algeria. FAS Algiers was able to contact 

the Ministry, quickly resolve the issue and gain release of the delayed shipments 

of vegetable seeds, one a sea freight order for $193,000 and the other an air freight 

order for $44,000. The company was at risk of losing an annual contract worth more 

than $560,000 in trade with Algerian clients. In both cases our close contacts with 

both private and public entities facilitated the resolution of the issues.

Question 5. Mr. Brewer, you mentioned in your testimony that ‘‘FAS employees 

serving in U.S. embassies are our eyes and ears around the world, providing the 

agricultural expertise to identify and seize opportunities, by capturing real-time information on emerging trade and market development issues, and averting problems 

before they become trade barriers that impede U.S. exports.’’ How do FAS employees leverage their in-country presence to fulfill these responsibilities? 

Answer. FAS employees work to identify market opportunities by providing market intelligence, identifying best market prospects and potential barriers to increased market access for agricultural exports. In some countries FAS employees 

provide ground truth when agricultural market information is not readily available 

and/or unreliable. FAS staff identify proposed detrimental trade actions. Early identification is essential to developing strategies to quickly address and resolve threats 

to trade which range from a blocked shipment to host government legislation. FAS 

overseas offices support U.S. trade objectives by proposing activities and selecting 

candidates for training, technical assistance or scientific and academic exchanges 

that serve to educate other countries in new technologies, trade-friendly regulatory 

systems and infrastructure development. Our ability to identify and respond to both 

opportunities and threats is the result of the cultivation of an extensive network of 

contacts, both in the government and the private sector in the countries where FAS 

has an in-country presence. 

In May 2010, FAS’ Agricultural Trade Office (ATO) in Beijing led a delegation of 

35 Chinese buyers to participate in the Food Marketing Institute show in Las 

Vegas, Nevada. The delegation was mixed between experienced buyers from Beijing 

and new buyers from specifically targeted emerging city markets such as Qingdao, 

Zhengzhou, Dalian, Harbin and the provinces of Xinjiang and Inner Mongolia. One 

ATO staff person accompanied the group, providing translation and general support 

for the group. ATO’s initial estimate of sales generated from this show was $15 million for one year. At eight months, confirmed actual sales have exceeded $17 million. 

Of particular note are the sales of alfalfa, which were a direct result of the expanded 

program set up by ATO; and sales of fruit into the emerging market city of Qingdao. 

In 2010, U.S. exporter Max InterAmericas/Maruchan Foods met with ATO Sao 

Paulo to introduce themself and solicit market advice for introducing their product 

(noodles) to the Brazilian market. Meetings arranged on the same day between Max 

InterAmericas/Maruchan Foods and Spectrus Importacao led to the importer purchasing its first container of noodles in October 2010. For 2011, sales are expected 

to reach $2 million.

Question 6. Mr. Brewer, your Foreign Service officers (FSO) are known for their 

expertise in trade and agricultural issues abroad. Could you describe the background and training required at USDA which makes your FSO’s unique and helps 

them effectively promote U.S. exports? 

Answer. To be eligible to apply to be a Foreign Service Officer, candidates must 

have 18 months of USDA service and one year of FAS service. Successful candidates 

undergo intensive on-the-job training, including learning about the USDA and FAS 

mission and objectives, such as commodity and trade reporting, trade policy, market 

development, domestic policies, regulatory issues affecting food safety and animal 

and plant health, and supervision and management. Once selected for an assignment, FSOs enter into intensive training including language, area studies, cultural 

awareness and other courses related to their assignment. Many FSOs have agricultural backgrounds and education, including advanced degrees, are former Peace 

Corps volunteers and have other related experiences.

Question 7. Mr. Brewer, in your testimony you highlighted the value of U.S. farm 

and food products. In your view, how important is it to expand exports of branded 

products through the Market Access Program to global consumers who associate 

those brands with high-quality U.S. products? 

Answer. The export successes of small companies and agricultural cooperatives 

achieved through branded activities funded by the Market Access Program (MAP) 

are well documented in the FAS Office of Trade Programs’ publication ‘‘Export Programs at Work,’’ copies of which have been shared with Congressional offices. While 

generic promotion works well for broad commodities, such as grains and oilseeds, 

and products for which branding is difficult, such as beef and leather, for the procVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:20 Jun 07, 2011 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00104 Fmt 6621 Sfmt 6621 I:\DOCS\112-09\65893.TXT BRIAN
101

essed products sector and some specialty crops, branding is fundamental. With nearly 95 percent of the world’s consumers living outside the borders of the United 

States, many of whom are young and looking for new products to try, MAP provides 

critical seed money to help our small, inexperienced and emerging food processors 

to better understand the opportunities, and challenges, of the export market, and 

to see if and how they can develop such opportunities into actual foreign sales. 

Questions Submitted by Hon. Collin C. Peterson, a Representative in Congress from 

Minnesota 

Question 1. What criteria does USDA use to evaluate the effectiveness of the five 

export programs under FAS? 

Answer. Program effectiveness is assessed in a number of ways. Each participant 

submits a Unified Export Strategy (UES), which is an activity plan and application 

for funding for all programs sought, and a reporting tool for results from previous 

program activities for returning organizations. The UES process covers all five FAS 

administered export programs. The review process for recommending funding, 

places the most weight on evaluation of past efforts and program results. Each recipient of program funding is obligated to annually report results against the performance measures established in their approved program/project proposals. 

Since 2005, FAS has tracked a variety of program metrics, UES performance 

measure results, industry contributions, and various measures related to small company participants, i.e., number of companies making their first export sale. FAS, in 

2010, commissioned an update of a 2007 third party cost-benefit study of market 

development programs. The updated study analyzed the impact of the increase in 

foreign market development investment that took place under the 2002 Farm Bill 

through 2009. It concluded that every dollar of increased investment in market development activities resulted in $35 in U.S. agricultural exports. It also reported 

that U.S. agricultural exports were $6.1 billion higher in 2009, compared to what 

they would have been without the increased investment.

Question 2. Are their requirements that entities that receive Market Access Program (MAP) funding ‘‘graduate’’ from the program after a certain number of years? 

Answer. Small and medium-sized entities (SMEs) participating in MAP-branded 

programs are limited to 5 years of funding in a single country, after which entities 

graduate from the country.

Question 2a. If so, how many MAP recipients have actually graduated from the 

program since inception? 

Answer. MAP branded activities have a 5 year graduation period for branded activities for a given company in a given market. Since 1994, when FAS began keeping detailed SME records, about 8,800 SMEs have participated in branded MAP programs and, of those, about eight percent overall are documented as having graduated out of a particular market. A company may stop using MAP funds in a market before the end of their 5 year period; may become established and shift to enter 

a different market or may leave the market and program for business reasons. A 

given company may be in more than one market, and each company-market situation has its own graduation period. The State Regional Trade Groups, that manage 

the larger portion of the MAP branded effort, have tracking systems in place to 

monitor such activities, by company and market, to ensure participating companies 

graduate out of a given market at the end of the respective 5 year period.

Question 2b. How many are still exporting the product to the region for which 

they were receiving funding? 

Answer. The 5 year period establishes a company’s presence in a market. FAS 

does not track a company’s sales after it is no longer receiving MAP funds.

Question 2c. If not, what are some reasons why graduation may not be possible 

for some commodities, regions, or organization? 

Answer. In MAP branded programming, FAS partners with program participants, 

such as State Regional Trade Groups (SRTGs), in a 50/50 cost share effort to assist 

individual small companies to establish their brand in a particular market. For most 

of the companies participating in branded programs, 5 years is appropriate for the 

targeted markets. Participation in some of the major foreign trade shows is exempted from the graduation requirement as such events often draw buyers from all over 

the world, in addition to importers from the country hosting the show.

Question 3. How does USDA determine the priority among different U.S. commodities for the Foreign Market Development Program (FMDP)? What are the primary 

criteria for deciding funding levels? 

Answer. Foreign Market Development (Cooperator) Program (FMD) funding is allocated as broadly as possible to achieve the program’s purpose to create, expand 

or maintain foreign markets for U.S. agricultural commodities and products. FMD 

102

does not set priorities among commodities. Close to 25 commodity organizations representing broad commodity and product sectors—from wheat and feed grains, to 

dairy, leather and livestock genetics—participate in FMD. Potential and existing Cooperators apply for FMD and any of the other four USDA market development programs using the Unified Export Strategy (UES). This document is an application, 

an activity plan, and is also a reporting tool. The UES is the basis for determining 

if an organization will receive funding. On receipt, the UES is first reviewed for sufficiency, i.e., all information necessary has been submitted. The UES then undergoes 

a thorough qualitative review by FAS program, technical and field staff to evaluate 

the applicant’s program proposal and the merits of the market conditions noted as 

justification. In that review, FAS also assesses the applicant’s capabilities to conduct 

strategic planning, implement and manage programs, and, for returning groups, the 

past record of the organization on those factors, along with program evaluations and 

demonstrated results. Demonstrating results is the primary criteria. For on-going 

programs, increased or decreased funding is in large part based on past performance, the previous year’s level of funding, and current year available funds. New applicants are reviewed on potential program impact, capabilities and resources to implement requested programming. Recommendations then undergo a quantitative 

competition in a formula. The contributions the applicant brings to the program are 

the heaviest weighted factor in the final funding level. 

Question Submitted by Hon. Vicky Hartzler, a Representative in Congress from Missouri 

Question. Mr. Brewer, in your written statement you spoke to the problem we 

have in emerging markets with counterfeiting of U.S. brands and what FAS is doing 

in coordination with EMP and participants to protect U.S. brands and prevent counterfeiting. Could you elaborate, for the Committee, about some of the findings from 

the above, further work to preserve intellectual property rights such as trademarked 

brands, and protection of branded products in emerging markets? 

Answer. FAS does accept EMP proposals that address counterfeiting of U.S. 

brands. As an example, for more than a decade, the Ginseng Board of Wisconsin 

(GBW) has battled Chinese counterfeiters selling fake Wisconsin Ginseng. With 90 

percent of its exports going to China, the GBW moved aggressively to regain control 

of its brand. Using EMP, GBW initiated research to develop a technique to detect 

trace elements of ginseng’s valuable root to Wisconsin or where it was grown originally; initial findings are promising. 

FAS’ global network of agricultural attache ́s also work to identify IPR infringement of U.S. products overseas and help protect U.S. producers. For example, in response to trademark property threats, FAS offices in China provide intellectual 

property assistance to U.S. cooperators, agricultural companies and interests, both 

newly entering and already established in the China market. Additionally, FAS Beijing provides on-the-ground investigation of the IPR protection of U.S. food and agricultural products. In a 2010 report, prepared by FAS Beijing, FAS’ attache ́s identified the most at-risk U.S. products and offered recommendations for U.S. exporters 

to combat IPR infringement and minimize its impact. This information has been 

provided to U.S. exporters via public attache ́ reports for use by the agricultural exporting trade. Additionally, FAS has provided information to bolster the U.S. Embassy’s web-based IPR toolkit and maintains an IPR issues page on the FAS Embassy website with useful information for U.S. exporters on how to protect their 

rights.

Æ