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

71–635 PDF 2012

S. HRG. 112–286 

OPPORTUNITIES FOR SPECIALTY CROPS 

AND ORGANICS IN THE FARM BILL 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, 

NUTRITION AND FORESTRY 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JULY 28, 2011 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov/ 

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION AND FORESTRY 

DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan, Chairwoman 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont 

TOM HARKIN, Iowa 

KENT CONRAD, North Dakota 

MAX BAUCUS, Montana 

E. BENJAMIN NELSON, Nebraska 

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio 

ROBERT P. CASEY, Jr., Pennsylvania 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

MICHAEL BENNET, Colorado 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

PAT ROBERTS, Kansas 

RICHARD G. LUGAR, Indiana 

THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi 

MITCH MCCONNELL, Kentucky 

SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia 

MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa 

JOHN THUNE, South Dakota 

JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota 

CHRISTOPHER J. ADAMO, Majority Staff Director 

JONATHAN W. COPPESS, Majority Chief Counsel 

JESSICA L. WILLIAMS, Chief Clerk 

MICHAEL J. SEYFERT, Minority Staff Director 

ANNE C. HAZLETT, Minority Chief Counsel 

(II) 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

HEARING(S): 

Opportunities for Specialty Crops and Organics in the Farm Bill ...................... 1 

Thursday, July 28, 2011 

STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY SENATORS 

Stabenow, Hon. Debbie, U.S. Senator from the State of Michigan, Chairwoman, Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry ............................ 1 

Roberts, Hon. Pat, U.S. Senator from the State of Kansas .................................. 2 

Panel I 

Woteki, Catherine, Ph.D., Undersecretary of Research, Education and Economics, USDA, Washington, DC ......................................................................... 5 

Wright, Ann, Deputy Undersecretary, Marketing and Regulatory Programs, 

USDA, Washington, DC ...................................................................................... 3 

Panel II 

Abbett, Glenn, Manager, Abbett Farms, LLC, LaCrosse, Indiana ...................... 25 

Bencal, Paul, Owner, Paul Bencal Farm, Ransomville, New York ..................... 22 

Engelhard, Dennis, Owner, Engelhard Family Farms, Unionville, Michigan .... 18 

Tait, Kim, Owner, Tait Farm Foods, Inc., Centre Hall, Pennsylvania ............... 20 

Wingard, Charles, Director of Field Operations, W.P. Rawls and Sons, Pelion, 

South Carolina ..................................................................................................... 27 

Woolley, Robert, Owner, Dave Wilson Nursery, Hickman, California ................ 24 

APPENDIX 

PREPARED STATEMENTS: 

Thune, Hon. John ............................................................................................. 40 

Abbett, Glenn .................................................................................................... 42 

Bencal, Paul ...................................................................................................... 52 

Engelhard, Dennis ............................................................................................ 58 

Tait, Kim ........................................................................................................... 62 

Wingard, Charles .............................................................................................. 65 

Woolley, Robert ................................................................................................. 74 

Woteki, Catherine ............................................................................................. 80 

Wright, Ann ...................................................................................................... 88 

QUESTION AND ANSWER: 

Stabenow, Hon. Debbie: 

Written questions to Ann Wright .................................................................... 131 

Written questions to Catherine Woteki .......................................................... 119 

Written questions to Dennis Engelhard ......................................................... 106 

Written questions to Kim Tait ........................................................................ 108 

Written questions to Paul Bencal ................................................................... 102 

Written questions to Robert Woolley .............................................................. 115 

Written questions to Glenn Abbett ................................................................. 98 

Written questions to Charles Wingard ........................................................... 111 

Hon. Pat Roberts: 

Written questions to Ann Wright .................................................................... 139 

Page

IV 

Hon. Pat Roberts—Continued 

Written questions to Catherine Woteki .......................................................... 122 

Written questions to Dennis Engelhard ......................................................... 106 

Written questions to Kim Tait ........................................................................ 109 

Written questions to Paul Bencal ................................................................... 103 

Written questions to Robert Woolley .............................................................. 117 

Written questions to Glenn Abbett ................................................................. 98 

Written questions to Charles Wingard ........................................................... 112 

Hon. Kirsten Gillibrand: 

Written questions to Catherine Woteki .......................................................... 125 

Hon. Richard G. Lugar: 

Written questions to Ann Wright .................................................................... 144 

Written questions to Catherine Woteki .......................................................... 127 

Hon. John Thune: 

Written questions to Ann Wright .................................................................... 145 

Written questions to Catherine Woteki .......................................................... 128 

Written questions to Dennis Engelhard ......................................................... 106 

Written questions to Kim Tait ........................................................................ 110 

Written questions to Paul Bencal ................................................................... 103 

Written questions to Robert Woolley .............................................................. 117 

Written questions to Glenn Abbett ................................................................. 99 

Written questions to Charles Wingard ........................................................... 113 

Abbett, Glenn: 

Written response to questions from Hon. Debbie Stabenow ......................... 98 

Written response to questions from Hon. Pat Roberts .................................. 98 

Written response to questions from Hon. John Thune .................................. 99 

Bencal, Paul: 

Written response to questions from Hon. Debbie Stabenow ......................... 102 

Written response to questions from Hon. Pat Roberts .................................. 103 

Written response to questions from Hon. John Thune .................................. 103 

Engelhard, Dennis: 

Written response to questions from Hon. Debbie Stabenow ......................... 106 

Written response to questions from Hon. Pat Roberts .................................. 106 

Written response to questions from Hon. John Thune .................................. 106 

Tait, Kim: 

Written response to questions from Hon. Debbie Stabenow ......................... 108 

Written response to questions from Hon. Pat Roberts .................................. 109 

Written response to questions from Hon. John Thune .................................. 110 

Wingard, Charles: 

Written response to questions from Hon. Debbie Stabenow ......................... 111 

Written response to questions from Hon. Pat Roberts .................................. 112 

Written response to questions from Hon. John Thune .................................. 113 

Woolley, Robert: 

Written response to questions from Hon. Debbie Stabenow ......................... 115 

Written response to questions from Hon. Pat Roberts .................................. 117 

Written response to questions from Hon. John Thune .................................. 117 

Woteki, Catherine: 

Written response to questions from Hon. Debbie Stabenow ......................... 119 

Written response to questions from Hon. Pat Roberts .................................. 122 

Written response to questions from Hon. Kirsten Gillibrand ....................... 125 

Written response to questions from Hon. Richard G. Lugar ........................ 127 

Written response to questions from Hon. John Thune .................................. 128 

Wright, Ann: 

Written response to questions from Hon. Debbie Stabenow ......................... 131 

Written response to questions from Hon. Pat Roberts .................................. 139 

Written response to questions from Hon. Richard G. Lugar ........................ 144 

Written response to questions from Hon. John Thune .................................. 145 

(1) 

OPPORTUNITIES FOR SPECIALTY CROPS 

AND ORGANICS IN THE FARM BILL 

Thursday, July 28, 2011 

UNITED STATES SENATE, COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION AND FORESTRY

Washington, DC 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:08 a.m., in Room 

G50, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Debbie Stabenow, chairwoman of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Stabenow, Casey, Klobuchar, Bennet, Gillibrand, Roberts, Lugar, Johanns, Boozman and Grassley. 

HON. DEBBIE STABENOW, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF 

MICHIGAN, CHAIRWOMAN, COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, 

NUTRITION AND FORESTRY 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Good morning again. We are very 

pleased to be here today for the second portion of our hearing to 

focus on the status of specialty crops and the organic industries. In 

the 2008 Farm Bill, we made great strides in recognizing specialty 

crops and organic growers as important partners and contributors 

to a vibrant American agricultural economy. 

Through our efforts, we were able to establish the horticulture 

and organics title for the first time ever to support specialty crop 

growers, helping them with pest and disease prevention, organic 

research and trade assistance for growers hurt by new trade agreements, something critically important for asparagus growers in 

Michigan. 

It is amazing to think that it took until 2008 for fruits, vegetables, nursery products, flora culture to actually have a specific formal role in the Farm Bill, but that is now the case. I am proud 

to say these important crops are a part of the Farm Bill discussions 

and their place in the Farm Bill is here to stay. 

Specialty crop and organic growers are not only helping to supply 

healthy products to our schools, our families, our communities, but 

these farmers are also making a major contribution to the American economy. Sales of U.S. specialty crops top $65 billion annually 

with nearly 2 billion of those sales coming from Michigan alone. 

Organic sales also contribute to an overgrowing—reaching nearly 

29 billion in 2010 and many new and beginning farmers are seeking out opportunities both in specialty crops and organic sectors, 

proving how crucial these efforts are to encouraging young farmers 

to begin farming. 

As our panelists will tell us, producing specialty crops continues 

to be a risky business. New and emerging pests and diseases continue to threaten the productivity of our farmers throughout the 

country and high input costs often mean tight margins and loaded 

2 

resources. Specialty crop efforts that have been very successful 

have been the Specialty Crop Block Grants, the Specialty Crop Research Initiative. I know they have been critical in helping producers manage their risks and expanding opportunities as well. 

As the second most diverse agricultural state in the country, 

Michigan has some great stories to tell and I am very pleased that 

Mr. Dennis Engelhard is here today to share some of the challenges facing specialty crop growers in my state, as well as his experience working to improve dry bean varieties and provide new 

market opportunities that address America’s nutritional needs. 

In addition to Mr. Engelhard, we have a very diverse group of 

producers from nearly every region of the country, I think, and 

every kind of operation and size this morning. We are also about 

to hear from two key officials from the Department of Agriculture 

who oversee the research, the marketing, pest and disease initiatives, as well as the National Organic Program. 

I would like now to turn the podium over to my good friend and 

ranking member, Senator Roberts. And I know that although Kansas is not generally thought of as a specialty crops state, I recently 

learned that the State has quite a surge in farmer’s markets and 

I know you do have specialty crops and I know that you are very 

involved in promoting the Farmer’s Market Promotion Program, as 

well as all the other diversity of crops in Kansas. 

And I might say as an aside, I am looking forward in the next 

month and coming as we do our second field hearing to have the 

opportunity to be in Kansas and see firsthand. 

STATEMENT OF HON. PAT ROBERTS, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE 

STATE OF KANSAS 

Senator ROBERTS. Madam Chairwoman, thank you for holding 

this hearing. Thank you for the opportunity to go to Michigan on 

our first hearing and learn firsthand for so many specialty crop 

growers just how important this whole endeavor is, not only to 

Michigan, but all over the country. 

We have been exploring Section 10 and I have been learning 

from staff just how important the program is to Kansas. As a matter of fact, I have a question of the witnesses to explain that. People think of Kansas as a model agricultural state, i.e., we are a lot 

more involved in a lot of other things. 

So I just appreciate your holding this hearing. I am looking forward to hearing the witnesses. Since I obviously held up the hearing, I think we better get to them and I have some questions for 

them. But thank you so much for holding this hearing. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. As I said, we are very pleased to have 

two excellent panelists with us. Yes. Yes, Senator Lugar? 

Senator LUGAR. May I take this opportunity, to offer an introduction also to one of our witnesses? 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Absolutely. Please do. 

Senator LUGAR. On the second panel, we will hear from Glenn 

Abbett, who is a second generation farmer from LaCrosse, Indiana. 

Glenn was born and raised in LaPorte County by his parents, Lou 

and Joan Abbett. Early on he knew he wanted to follow in his dad’s 

footsteps and be a farmer, so he worked on the family farm while 

going to school. 

3 

And after graduating from Purdue University with a degree in 

mechanical engineering, he joined his dad on the family farm. In 

the late 1990s, Glenn became the primary manager of the business 

and the Abbett family now farms 4,300 acres of commercial corn, 

seed corn, processed tomatoes, soybeans, processed green beans 

and wheat. Roughly 650 of those acres are processed tomatoes. 

Glenn and his dad have been growing tomatoes for Red Gold, 

Inc. for approximately 20 years. As a grower, Glenn has won many 

awards, including a prestigious Master Grower Award four times, 

which honors outstanding quality professionalism and industry 

leadership. Most recently, in 2009, Glenn won the Red Gold Stewardship award which recognized the grower who demonstrated exemplary leadership to maximize the potential of Indiana’s agricultural industry. 

He has been married 16 years to Leslie. They have four children, 

one of whom traveled with him to be here today. Welcome Casey, 

the son. All of Glenn’s children help on the farm in one way or another when they can. Glenn, like his father before him, has dedicated his life to farming and it is Glenn’s greatest desire that one 

of his children will take over in the future. We are delighted to 

have Glenn and his son here with us today. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Thank you so much. We are very much 

looking forward to his sharing his testimony with us. 

We will proceed now and welcome our two witnesses, and of 

course, we know you understand we will be happy to take whatever 

you have in writing and ask that you keep your comments to five 

minutes in terms of verbal comments so we have an opportunity 

for questions. 

Let me first welcome our first panelists, Ms. Ann Wright, who is 

the deputy undersecretary for marketing and regulatory programs 

at USDA. Prior to her appointment, she served as the senior policy 

advisor to Majority Leader Harry Reid on agriculture issues. She 

has also held a position as a policy analyst for the Consumer’s 

Union and has worked with farmers and non-profit organizations 

at the National Sustainable Agricultural Coalition. 

So we welcome you, and also Dr. Woteki, Catherine Woteki. Dr. 

Woteki is the undersecretary for research, education and economics 

at the USDA. Prior to her appointment, Dr. Woteki served as global director of scientific affairs for Mars, Incorporated, where she 

managed the company’s scientific policy and research on matters of 

health, nutrition and food safety. She also held several positions as 

dean of agriculture at Iowa State University and undersecretary 

for food safety at the USDA, deputy associate director for science 

and technology at the White House, and chair of the Food and Nutrition Board. 

And so we welcome both of you and we would ask Ms. Wright 

to proceed with your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF ANN WRIGHT, DEPUTY UNDERSECRETARY, 

MARKETING AND REGULATORY PROGRAMS, USDA 

Ms. WRIGHT. Thank you. Chairman Stabenow, Ranking Member 

Roberts and members of the Committee, thank you for inviting me 

to appear before you today to provide an update on the work undertaken by USDA on Title X of the 2008 Farm Bill. My name is Ann 

4 

Wright and I serve as deputy undersecretary for Marketing and 

Regulatory Programs at USDA. MRP’s Agricultural Marketing 

Service and the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service are 

the primary agencies with responsibility for implementing Title X. 

The overall farm economy continues to remain strong with U.S. 

agricultural exports, farm cash receipts and net farm income projected at or above previous record levels in 2011, with a crop value 

of roughly $57 billion. Specialty crops play an important role in 

contributing to the country’s robust agricultural economy. 

As for the organic industry, they are viewed as the fastest growing sector of agriculture. According to industry statistics, U.S. sales 

of organic food and beverages have grown from $1 billion in 1990 

to an estimated 26.7 billion in 2010. 

Title X of the 2008 Farm Bill represented the first time that a 

Farm Bill title was devoted exclusively to addressing the needs of 

specialty crop and organic growers. Knowing how important these 

programs are to the vitality of the industry at large, we have 

worked to make delivery of these programs a success. The Agricultural Marketing Service administers two important Title X grant 

programs, the Specialty Crop Block Grant Program and the Farmer’s Market Promotion Program. 

The Specialty Crop Block Grant Program enhances the competitiveness of the specialty crop industry, including horticulture, 

through tailored projects that address state needs and priorities. 

Much of the program’s success and importance is based on the fact 

that states and their growers can define and address priorities and 

respond to emerging issues and opportunities in a timely way. 

For example, the State of Michigan recently used block grant 

funds to increase participation of grape growers in the state’s successful Michigan Agriculture Environmental Assurance Program. 

In Montana, the State is using block grant funds to develop a more 

economical method of potato production. 

While projects differ from state to state, they share the same 

goal of increasing the success of the specialty crop industry, keeping farmers farming and rural communities thriving. The other important AMS grant program in Title X is the Farmer’s Market Promotion Program. This program improves and expands direct marketing opportunities for growers, such as Farmer’s Markets, community-supported agriculture programs and agri-tourism activities. 

The program is funded at $10 million in Fiscal Year 2011 and 

2012. 

AMS administers the National Organic Program. For this fiscal 

year, the NOP is funded at $6.9 million. Reauthorized in Title X 

of the Farm Bill, the National Organic Certification Cost Share 

Program makes funds available to organic producers and handlers 

to help cover or defray the cost of certification. Organic certification 

is an annual and sometimes costly process which can create barriers for entry for small and mid-sized farmers and ranchers. 

Through the cost-share program, Congress has recognized the opportunity to support beginning, small and mid-sized producers who 

make up a significant percentage of this growing industry. AMS 

plays a critical role in administering Section 32 funds which are 

used to purchase non-price-supported surplus commodities for distribution to federal nutrition programs. 

5 

Annually we purchase approximately $1 billion in commodities 

for distribution to various nutrition assistance programs such as 

our National School Lunch Program, food banks and soup kitchens. 

The 2008 Farm Bill directed USDA to nearly double the Section 

32 specialty crop purchases required in the 2002 Farm Bill and in 

2011, AMS plans to purchase over $400 million. The 2008 Farm 

Bill gave APHIS two additional tools to protect agriculture and specialty crops. Both programs, the Plant Pest and Disease Management and Disaster Prevention Program and the National Clean 

Plant Network, have proven to be highly effective and widely supported by stakeholders and industry. 

Through the Plant Pest and Disease Management and Disaster 

Prevention Program, or Section 10201, APHIS has partnered with 

numerous states, tribes, universities and other communities to 

strengthen and expand the scope of APHIS’ pest and disease prevention activities. While many see pests as just that, pests, to 

America’s specialty crop growers they can mean serious business 

disruptions. 

For example, if left undetected, the discovery of a plant pest or 

its vector on a wine grape orchard in New York or a citrus grove 

in Texas can escalate into a domestic and international quarantine, 

loss of market opportunities and costly mitigation and eradication 

interventions. 

Section 10201 allows APHIS to address emerging pest and disease outbreaks in those critical early states, hopefully resulting in 

far less economic impact to growers and communities who depend 

on them. 

The second Farm Bill program, the National Clean Plant Network, develops and produces clean propagative plant material so 

that should plant pest or disease strike, clean plant material is 

available to states, private nurseries and producers. Essentially it 

is an insurance policy that guarantees that there will be a fresh 

stock of disease-free plants. 

AMS and APHIS undertake numerous activities to facilitate the 

competitive and efficient marketing of U.S. agricultural products, 

as well as to protect and safeguard critical sectors of U.S. agriculture. I hope that this testimony and the subsequent question 

and answers will prove useful to the Subcommittee as you undertake your work on the next Farm Bill. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Wright can be found on page 88 

in the appendix.] 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Thank you very much. Dr. Woteki. 

STATEMENT OF CATHERINE WOTEKI, UNDERSECRETARY OF 

RESEARCH, EDUCATION AND ECONOMICS, USDA 

Ms. WOTEKI. Good morning Chairwoman Stabenow, Senator Roberts, Senator Lugar, Senator Johanns. It is a real pleasure to be 

testifying before you today about some of the recent advances in 

specialty crops research, as well as our research, education and extension activities that relate to organic farmers as well. I have a 

longer written testimony that I have submitted for the record and 

I will be summarizing those comments. 

As you already made reference to Chairwoman Stabenow, in your 

opening remarks, the Specialty Crops Competitive Act provided us 

6 

with a definition of specialty crops and the 2008 Farm Bill provided 

some new and very important provisions, not only in Title X that 

my colleague has been describing, but also in Title VII, the research title for which I have responsibility for implementation. In 

that title we created the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, as well as additional programs that support specialty crops 

and organics through research, education and extension. 

The approach that we have taken for specialty crops and organic 

agriculture actually go beyond the very specific provisions that relate to specialty crops. We have taken a multi-agency, multi-disciplinary approach that involves all of the four agencies in the research, education and economics mission area. And as you pointed 

out, specialty crops and organic agriculture are very important. 

The 2007 census of agriculture valued specialty crops at $67.4 billion. And while they only represented 12.7 percent of harvested 

crop acreage in 2007, they were almost 47 percent of U.S. crop 

value and employed nearly 1.4 million people. 

So another interesting development out of the census of agriculture was the finding that beginning farmers are more likely to 

be involved in specialty crop production and we are also aware that 

the largest segment of the emerging organic agriculture sector is in 

specialty crops. 

The 2008—I am sorry, the 2004 Specialty Crops Act also established a subcommittee within the National Agriculture Research, 

Education, Extension and Economics Advisory Board that has recently held hearings in Michigan just the last week and heard from 

representatives of Michigan specialty crop industry. The committee 

is now working to compile its findings and I am awaiting their report and that will also be provided to the Committee. 

I would like to just briefly now highlight some of the findings 

that are described in greater detail in the written testimony, but 

with respect to the research programs that we support in the university community, the Specialty Crop Research Initiative has in 

the 2008 Farm Bill been authorized at $230 million for five years, 

from 2008 to 2012, and it is dedicated to developing and disseminating science-based tools and technology. Even though the research projects that are funded under this have not yet reached 

completion, growers and consumers are already benefitting from 

this investment. 

And just two brief examples. Water availability, it is really critical for agricultural use and one project in California has the potential to reduce water in grape production by a range of 150 to over 

300 billion gallons a year. This amount of water would be the daily 

household water needs of over six million Americans for an entire 

year, so very major savings. 

Second example is in the tree fruit crops. Harvesting accounts for 

about half of production costs and one of the grants developed an 

augmented harvesting system for apples that is also applicable for 

peaches, apricots and nectarines. It has been developed. It is now 

in the commercial testing phase and that full-scale field experiment 

is now in progress and expected to demonstrate at least a 25 percent increase in worker productivity and reduction in fruit bruising 

and leading to increased quality. 

7 

NIFA also offers the Organic Agriculture Research and Extension 

Initiative, specifically supporting organic agriculture through the 

integration of research and extension activities. These grants programs for this year are currently under review and the program is 

expected to fund $19 million in this year. 

Our Intramural Research Programs reflect a long-term investment. For example, the Agriculture Research Service support specialty crops through its critical germplasm collections. These are resources for crop breeders. The statistics agencies, the Economics 

Research Service and the National Agricultural Statistics Service, 

provide very important data and analyses that are also important 

for the specialty crops and the organic agriculture. 

So from our perspective, the pathway forward is very clear. We 

are looking to leverage the USDA science investment for the continued success of the specialty crops and organic industry. 

In this time of fiscal austerity, we are committed to maximizing 

the return on the investment of federal dollars in science, education and extension activities. We are working to coordinate across 

the agencies with their stakeholder engagement and we are committed to conducting the foundational pre-commercial scientific research to develop educational tools based on that and provide them 

to farmers by using our cooperative extension network. 

I am going to be pleased to answer any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Woteki can be found on page 80 

in the appendix.] 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Thank you very much, to both of you. 

And before proceeding with questions, I know that Senator 

Johanns wanted to make a comment. 

Senator JOHANNS. Madam Chair, thank you very much. And I 

know this is out of order, but I do have to leave for another meeting, so I really thank you for the opportunity to say a word about 

a very, very good friend who I just want to offer my best wishes 

to, and that is Dave Johnson, on his impending retirement. 

When I was secretary of Agriculture and we were drawing ideas 

and putting them together for a proposal to Congress about some 

changes in the Farm Bill, it was Dave and a very small group at 

the USDA that actually put pen to paper. And his work ethic, his 

knowledge of ag policy is just literally unrivaled and I could not 

have done what I did without his assistance. 

I want to also say I cannot imagine doing a Farm Bill without 

Dave Johnson. How does that happen? He has been a part of the 

Farm Bill process on four different occasions, which is a significant 

amount of history. Dave leaves with my appreciation, my gratitude 

and my prayers and best wishes for everything that is ahead of 

him and I thank you for this privilege. It was very important to 

me personally that I say a few words about Dave. Thank you. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Thank you, Senator Johanns, and Senator Roberts had indicated earlier his comments and we all share 

in that. And Dave, do not get too far away. We will have to see if 

we can get you back to help with the Farm Bill. So thank you very 

much for those comments. 

We will proceed now to questions. Let me start, Dr. Woteki, 

about research and innovation, which is so important, a very imVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:36 Mar 30, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\71635.TXT MICHA
8 

portant tool for our farmers as they’re managing risks to be successful. We all know that a wide range of research is needed. 

My concern is that despite the need, agricultural research continues to lag behind other research funding. In fact, there are over 

$400 million in expiring programs in the research title, including 

the Specialty Crop Research Initiative, and we have lost over $130 

million due to the elimination of the Congressionally-designated 

projects, which we have dubbed earmarks. 

We have changed that process. We are not doing that anymore, 

and yet, that has been a primary way that we have provided dollars for universities when I think of Michigan State University in 

Michigan. And so we need to find other ways in which we can come 

together to be able to address that as this process has changed. 

So I wondered if you might speak to how your agency is balancing the increased demand with reduced funding, any thoughts 

that you would have about how we need to move forward in changing the process around research to make sure that we are focusing 

particularly on the real world impacts for farmers. 

Ms. WOTEKI. I think that question hits on one of my central concerns, and that is that at this point in time, with all of the challenges that are facing farmers in the U.S., the provision of new 

technologies that are going to help them be successful is extremely 

critical. 

Those new technologies come out of research. They come out of 

developmental activities that occur in the private sector and that 

build on the kind of foundational research findings that come from 

the intramural and the extramural research programs that are 

supported at USDA. I do think it is extremely important that attention be given to the very important role that the investment in 

research and extension play in agricultural productivity. 

Just this week, the Economics Research Service has issued a report that will make available to the Committee, that projects out 

to the year 2050 what the effects will be on agricultural productivity under three different budget scenarios. One would be maintaining at constant dollars the current investment. The second scenario is assuming that the agricultural research and extension investment keeps up with inflation, and that assumption is that it 

would lead to an increase in the level of funding of 3.7 percent per 

year. 

And the third scenario is 1 percent additional growth on top of 

that, so a 4.7 percent increase. And it projects out what the effects 

are going to be on agricultural productivity. At the constant dollar 

approach, we will not be able, under the projections, to meet the 

demands for food in the United States. Our agricultural exports 

would go down. 

So to your point, there are emerging some very important analyses that I think will help to inform your viewpoints, the Committee’s viewpoints about the necessity for maintaining these investments in agricultural science, our extension programs, as well as 

higher education, because we need to be training the students that 

are going to continue this research and education activity. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. I could not agree more. Ms. Wright, if 

you could speak to what is a major concern for specialty crop growers, and that is pest and disease problems. You have spoken to that 

9 

already, but we have a number of different issues in Michigan, the 

brown Marmorated stink bug and things with funny names that 

are not funny actually, to farmers, the Spotted Wing Drosophila 

and bugs that are having major impact on producers. 

Obviously, prevention, early detection is very important. This 

goes back to partnership with research and so on on how we are 

going to address this. But it is my understanding that in 2011 the 

request for funding for plant pest and disease management and 

disaster prevention, the request, the need was $125 million, nearly 

three times as much as the funding that was available. 

And so could you talk about how you determine your priorities 

in funding as it relates to the states and projects, given the tremendous need and what we are hearing, particularly from our specialty crop growers? 

Ms. WRIGHT. Thank you for the opportunity to talk a little bit 

about some of the challenges that we at the department are facing 

when it comes to doing more with less. I think across the department, we are taking an approach that was outlined by Undersecretary Woteki when it comes to better understanding how we implement our programs at different funding levels. 

I think within APHIS we are looking hard at our core plant and 

protection programs and trying to better understand where those 

dollars that are being spent and allocated are being effective and 

where with some of our ongoing disease management programs we 

are seeing we have to cut back. 

And so we are doing that kind of looking at where dollars can 

be used most efficiently in our battle against pest and diseases and 

where we can target dollars to address new and emerging diseases 

more effectively. So I think we are able to do that and we are feeling comfortable that we are not leaving the industry at risk under 

any one of those scenarios. I think some of the programs that I outlined and that we are talking about here today that are new to the 

Farm Bill are helping in that effort and so moving forward we will 

continue to stay focused on keeping the industry strong. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Thank you very much. My time is more 

than up. I will submit some questions to you later about some of 

what is happening at the borders in Michigan, as well. We have— 

two weeks a new—the customs checkpoint in Port Huron found a 

new type of beetle, the Capra beetle. It is one of a number of different challenges we have had at the border in terms of beetles 

coming in on wood and trash and so on. 

So continue to work with you on those areas, because we have 

a number of different challenges in this area and we need to work 

with APHIS on. So thank you. Senator Roberts. 

Senator ROBERTS. Thank you, Madam Chair. The department obviously plays a very prominent role in bringing plants to market 

that deliver multiple benefits to farmers and consumers. It’s important for the department to maintain a leadership role in the review 

process outlined in the coordinated framework between the Department of Agriculture, FDA and the EPA. And I appreciate that new 

products have been approved this year, but I am concerned and I 

think most on the Committee are as well, about the overall length 

of time that the process is taking. 

10 

Would you comment on the USDA’s role in the coordinated 

framework and the time frame for the review of the new products 

and having said that, if you really do not want to take time to answer it now, by a written response after the hearing is just fine. 

But I think it is terribly important in regards to the length of time 

that it is taking. 

Would you comment? 

Ms. WRIGHT. Thank you, Senator Roberts. I want to make sure 

I understand your question. You are talking about the regulatory 

process that APHIS oversees when it comes to biotechnology products? 

Senator ROBERTS. Yes. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. WRIGHT. We would be happy to submit to your staff some of 

the long-range plans or at least Fiscal Year 2011 plans we have in 

place for moving products forward, moving decisions on products 

forward. 

The secretary has emphasized the importance of improving efficiencies around our regulatory process so that we can in a timely 

way put together important environmental documents, as well as 

regulatory justifications for our decisions that are defensible and 

that stand the test of time, and do that in a way that we are supporting the industry and moving technology forward. That is something that this administration is supportive of and the secretary of 

Agriculture is supportive of. 

Senator ROBERTS. I know the president issued an executive order 

January 18 asking all agencies to submit a cost benefit study or to 

take a look at all of the regs that they have been promulgating and 

future regs. There are a few loopholes that we have tried to do in 

a bill that I have introduced to take those loopholes and to codify 

the president’s executive order. 

He deserves a lot of credit for doing that and I know the department is doing its best to do exactly that, and that you cannot go 

anywhere today in farm country, or for that matter, anywhere 

without somebody standing up and saying what on earth are you 

doing drowning this in regulations that do not make sense or they 

might put me out of business. But thank you for that and we will 

look forward to that report. 

Now, let’s see here, back to specialty products. Specifically the 

plant pest and disease management and disaster prevention program, you have mentioned this program is widely supported by industry. It is over subscribed. Can you provide us with further information about the program, specifically in addition to the 50 million 

funding allocated in Fiscal Year ’11? Congress appropriated another 248 million for pest disease prevention, eradication and mitigation. 

Now, my question really is, how does this program differ from 

the funding that Congress appropriates annually for pest and disease eradication and mitigation? Is there some duplication here 

that should be addressed given the current realities of the budget 

situation, and if so, how do you recommend we address? 

Ms. WRIGHT. Thank you again for the opportunity to talk about 

some of these important programs. I think the section 10201 program, which was authorized by Congress, outlined sort of six priorities that kind of govern or direct APHIS in their approach to adVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:36 Mar 30, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\71635.TXT MICHA
11 

ministering that $50 million. And the ultimate goal, I think, is to 

engage the states around the surveillance and detection and rapid 

response to some of the threats to specialty crops in a way that we 

save dollars over the long run. 

So we are putting in place an infrastructure that actually, hopefully—— 

Senator ROBERTS. Why don’t you include that in the information 

that you are going to provide the Committee and I am going to skip 

over here some other questions that I will submit for the record 

and move on to Undersecretary Woteki. 

Too many questions. Are there any funds available through Section 32 to address the disaster we are going through with the midwest floods and the drought? And I’m asking Undersecretary 

Wright. What other resources are available at USDA? We are burning up out there, but we are—it is as bad as it was in the thirties. 

Ms. WRIGHT. The secretary does have the authority to transfer 

Section 32 funds to address disaster assistance and there are funds 

in the account right now. 

Senator ROBERTS. Okay, I appreciate that. I will get in touch 

with Tom and you can as well. 

Undersecretary Woteki, thank you for the work you do. I appreciate your partnership and your cooperation. I know I am over time 

30 seconds, but that is the way it goes. Feel like I was in the tunnel there with traffic. 

The State of Kansas and Kansas City University were selected 

to be the home of the new national bio and agri defense facility and 

I know that you are very familiar with that, that is, the Department of Homeland Security is building to replace Plum Island. Our 

state has offered up the use of the Bioresearch Institute, the BRI— 

that is a level three lab—to begin shifting research from Plum Island to the new Kansas location. Kansas has also offered up cost 

share money to help the department expand its research in specific 

disease threat areas. 

Can you tell me where we are in the process of beginning to 

transfer this research to the new location, also take advantage of 

the cost share Kansas has said it will provide, and where are we 

in completing a memorandum of understanding with Kansas State 

and the State of Kansas on this front? 

Ms. WOTEKI. Thank you, Senator Roberts, for those questions 

about what is an extremely important facility, both for our research 

programs as well as for the programs that APHIS administers with 

respect to protecting our livestock from animal diseases that occur 

in foreign countries, but are not yet here in the United States. 

We are working very closely to develop a plan for the transition 

of our research programs on our part and APHIS’ programs from 

Plum Island into the new facility that will be built at Kansas State 

University to replace Plum Island. We would be happy to meet 

with you, share those plans, where they stand right now. 

As I think you have been briefed and your staff has been briefed, 

we are currently working on a site-specific risk assessment, the 

second of these that will be completed in January of next year and 

is the subject of a review by the National Academy of Sciences. 

Senator ROBERTS. You have been very helpful in that, in providing information to the NAS, which I think was, quite frankly, 

12 

rather sophomoric in their approach and in terms of accurate 

science. We met with the panel, we meaning Senator Brownback. 

He is now governor. And it was a little bit beyond me in terms of 

what they reached. 

But the Congress and the House has approved the money to start 

this project. In the meantime, we need to get people moving and 

get this project going. And so it is the memorandum of understanding that I am really interested in and if you could provide our 

office with that I would greatly appreciate it. 

And thank you so much for your help in the understanding of 

how critical this is in regards to the food security of the country. 

And my time is way over time, Madam Chairwoman, so I will cease 

and desist. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Thank you very much. Senator Gillibrand. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and 

thank you, Mr. Ranking Member, for your excellent questions. We 

enjoyed them. 

I would like to address first with Deputy Undersecretary Ann 

Wright. I understand you are taking the lead in the Healthy Food 

Financing Initiative at the USDA. That is one of the issues that 

I have really taken a prominent role in the Senate on because I 

think it is very important that we fully fund these initiatives in the 

appropriation process, both in the ’11 and ’12 budgets. 

Additionally, I am the lead sponsor of a bill called Healthy Food 

Financing Bill that will place full authority under the USDA to implement the essential program to solve our food desert problem. 

Therefore, I want to talk to you about the food desert map locator 

that you released on the USDA. 

Now, as it is currently functioning, it is not actually addressing 

major food deserts in New York City because of the nature of how 

it considers distance. Now, New York City is unique because we 

have food deserts, significant food deserts in Harlem, Bronx and 

Central Brooklyn, parts of Queen and Staten Island. And in New 

York, we have growing issues of childhood obesity, of Type II diabetes, cardiovascular disease, even in young children. And so we have 

to solve this food desert problem. 

So I would like to know how you are addressing that problem in 

the program currently, because we do not have transportation networks that reach to all markets and people do not drive in New 

York City. They often take public transportation, and for seniors, 

they cannot necessarily carry groceries long distances and walk to 

the local market. 

So what are you going to do to fix this problem? 

Ms. WRIGHT. Thank you for that question and thank you for your 

leadership on this issue; it is recognized and very much appreciated. 

When USDA, the Department of Treasury and Health and 

Human Services began their work on trying to better understand 

food deserts or communities across the country that did not have 

easy access to health food options, we were very much challenged 

to come up with a definition and a tool that addressed needs nationwide in both rural and urban communities. 

13 

And we are increasingly aware of where this tool and this definition failed to capture some of the nuances of cities, densely populated areas. And I think two things, one we stay open, moving forward to working with cities like New York City that have invested 

heavily in better understanding their populations with groups 

across the country who are developing their own data sets and 

mapping tools to improve what we can offer. 

But we also want to be very clear that our definition and our 

map are not determinants of eligibility. What we are looking for 

are ways that communities are addressing the individual needs of 

their community, whether you are New York City or whether you 

are a small rural town. And we want to make that clear and we 

will be doing that. 

We are providing a frequently asked questions document on the 

Economic Research Service website and we will be reaching out to 

stakeholders and local communities and governments around the 

country to make that clear. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Well, I hope you will change the website 

still, because it is really important, because so much of this is 

about awareness and we want to be able to track grocery store 

chains, other important participants in solving the problem to focus 

on these inner city areas that really you cannot buy Whole Foods 

fruits and vegetables at an affordable rate for some of these communities. 

So I urge you to at least put some discretion into your model so 

the human mind can intervene and say well, this is clearly a food 

desert, even though our model does not track it. I think it is important for educational purposes and for awareness that it is very obvious to everyone that these food deserts are located still in New 

York City. 

Ms. WRIGHT. Thank you. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Thank you. Second point, New York City is 

home to the highest volume produce market in the country. We 

have this place called the Hunts Point Terminal Produce Market. 

It has 3,600 employees, an estimated annual revenue of $2 billion. 

It serves as a spot market for growers all across the country and 

with access to 23 million residents in the New York City metropolitan area, a significant core of the country’s population is served by 

this market. 

So I am wondering if USDA’s contemplating using its resources 

to help fund the infrastructure necessary to widely distribute specialty crops. 

Ms. WRIGHT. I believe that the agricultural marketing service 

staff who do a lot of work on our food hub issues are meeting with 

some of the folks at Hunts Point this week to talk about opportunities and to explore where we can be helpful in growing that market. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Thank you. And then for Undersecretary 

Woteki, just one question. We have heard from a lot of our organic 

producers that some of the USDA staff are actually unfamiliar with 

organic practices and programs or have certain biases against these 

practices, making it hard for organic producers to come to their 

local FSA or NRCS offices for help. 

14 

How has the USDA worked to educate its field staff to better understand the needs of these producers? 

Ms. WOTEKI. First of all, thank you for bringing this to my attention. I did not realize that we were having these problems. We will 

certainly look into it. 

There are a wide variety of backgrounder information that is 

available that we can make available to those field offices about the 

importance of this very growing sector of agriculture, so we will 

look into that. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. It is a very significant economic opportunity, not only for New York, but for the country. Organic products currently make up 4 percent of all food sales and organic 

fruits and vegetables up to 12 percent of the U.S. fruit and vegetable market. So we want to continue to look to the organic market 

as a revenue producer for our economy and give those producers as 

many resources as necessary to continue to grow those markets. 

Ms. WRIGHT. If I might take a stab at answering that question. 

I do know that we have entered into a cooperative agreement with 

a non-profit that is doing training of NRCS staff across the country 

and they have developed a curriculum to do that. And we are looking into a online ag learn program that will educate USDA staff 

in organic production practices. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Perfect. Thank you so much, both for your 

service and your dedication. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Thank you very much. Senator Lugar. 

Senator LUGAR. Secretary Wright, as we’ve discussed the Farm 

Bill in 2007 once again, we came up against the fact that for what 

were good reasons at the time during the Franklin Roosevelt Administration there were restrictions on what could be planted on 

how many acres on various farms. And in 2007, I introduced what 

was named the Farm Ranch Equity Stewardship and Health Act, 

the FRESH Act, which would provide a true insurance based safety 

net for all farmers regardless of what did they grow. 

That particular act was not successful, although we had a varied 

discussion of it in terms of modification of those kinds of restrictions. I have re-introduced the Farm Flexibility Act, and this legislation would permit producers to grow fruits and vegetables for 

processing while maintaining their historical base acres. This is 

one small step in liberating this decision making. 

I do have an opinion about that, or the importance of that, and 

I raise it because it is a source of difficulty for specialty crop farmers in my home state of Indiana. Whether they are producing tomatoes or apples or what have you, they run up against these restrictions that really date back to the 1930s. 

Would it be helpful if they were liberated? 

Ms. WRIGHT. Thank you, Senator Lugar. Well, as you know, the 

marketing regulatory program mission area does not administer 

that flex pilot that was authorized in the last Farm Bill, but I am 

aware of it and I know that our staff at FSA has been doing outreach in those seven states that are part of the pilot and trying to 

encourage participation. 

I do know that the Economic Research Service issued a report 

early this year looking at some of the challenges of that pilot and 

will allow my colleague here to address that. 

15 

Senator LUGAR. I would welcome that comment by Dr. Woteki. 

Ms. WOTEKI. Well, as Undersecretary White has already made 

reference, the Economic Research Service did earlier this year 

produce a report on the effects of this pilot program. It demonstrated very small. They used the term ‘‘modest effects.’’ We 

would be happy to share those results with you if you would like 

a briefing on it, to provide it to you as background. 

Senator LUGAR. That would be helpful if you would brief our staff 

on those findings and that will at least make our discussions more 

informed as we proceed. 

Ms. WOTEKI. Certainly. 

Senator LUGAR. Let me just ask another question, Dr. Wright. In 

the 2008 Farm Bill, we amended the Farmer’s Market Promotion 

Program to include the so-called agri-tourism promotion as a category for eligible funding. We provided $33 million in mandatory 

funding for five years. 

Could you discuss the status of that program and what has proceeded under it? 

Ms. WRIGHT. The program this year and next year will be admin- istering $10 million in competitive grants and what I can do for 

you is to get you a list of those grants so that you can see and we 

can see where there has been an uptick or an increase in demand 

for efforts in and around agri-tourism. 

It definitely is a program that tries to support direct marketing 

activities and historically has been seen as a program that supports farmer’s markets. And I think there is growing interest and 

growing awareness in other opportunities outside of farmer’s markets, which includes agri-tourism. 

But if you would allow, we will get you a report that outlines 

some of those activities that have been funded that are specific to 

agri-tourism. 

Senator LUGAR. That would be helpful. I would be delighted to 

have both reports in regard to my first question as well as the second. 

Ms. WRIGHT. I am sorry; did I not answer both questions? 

Senator LUGAR. No, you did answer the first one by indicating 

that a survey had been held in seven pilot states and what have 

you. And so we will take a look at that one also. 

Thank you very much. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Thank you very much. Senator Casey. 

Senator CASEY. Madam Chair, I think I will submit questions for 

the record in the interest of time because I have an important introduction on the second panel. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Yes, we are well aware of that and we 

will turn to you at the appropriate time. 

Senator CASEY. Thank you. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Senator Grassley. 

Senator GRASSLEY. I have no questions, Madam Chair. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Well, thank you very much. Well, we 

thank both of you very much. We appreciate your leadership and 

you both hold very important positions and we look forward to continuing to work with you as we develop the next Farm Bill, as well 

as focus on an ongoing basis on the issues that you oversee. So 

thank you very much. 

16 

[Pause.] 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Well, welcome. We are so pleased that 

all of you are here with us today and we very much value all of 

your input this morning. 

Let me begin introductions. I know colleagues have introductions 

that they would like to make as well, but first let me start our first 

witness. Mr. Dennis Engelhard is from Michigan—and it is so great 

to see you again—owner of Engelhard Family Farms in Unionville, 

Michigan, where he grows pulse crops and wheat and serves as the 

president of the U.S. Dry Bean Council and is a member of the 

Michigan Dry Bean Committee and the Tuscola Farm Bureau. 

Very much appreciate your being here today. 

And also, I am going to turn now to Senator Casey for our next 

introduction. 

Senator CASEY. Thank you, Madam Chair. I am honored to be 

able to introduce Kim Tait from Pennsylvania. Kim, I did not have 

a chance to say hello to you today, so I am going to pretend my 

arm can reach down there and say hello. I did not have a chance 

to do that between—I should have done it between the panels. 

But we are grateful that Kim is with us today. I met Kim in 

2007. We had a meeting in Pennsylvania among a number of 

women who are playing significant and very important roles on 

farms in Pennsylvania. 

Kim is from both Centre Hall, Pennsylvania, and that is within 

Centre County. One of the last times we spoke was in her home 

area. Kim is an organic farmer and has had success as a business 

woman as well as a farmer. She has a wide range of certified—or 

I should say, she operates Tait Farm Foods where she grows a 

wide range of certified organic fruits, vegetables and green house 

projects. 

Her operation includes a community-supported agriculture product, a value added facility and on-farm retail store and several education and research partnerships. She serves on an agricultural advisory committee that I set up to help me better understand some 

of the challenges we face in agriculture. She is a founding member 

and past vice president of the Pennsylvania Association for Sustainable Agriculture. 

Kim, we are grateful you are here. We are looking forward to 

your testimony and we are of course proud that a Pennsylvanian 

is on this panel. Thank you very much. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Thank you very much, Senator Casey. 

And now I am going to turn to Senator Gillibrand for the next introduction. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I am very 

pleased to welcome a New Yorker, Paul Bencal, who is a grape producer from Ransomville, New York in Niagara County in Upstate 

New York. Mr. Bencal’s farm consists of 50 acres of vineyards, producing Concord and Niagara Juice grapes. 

He has been operating his farm since 1973. Grapes are a very 

important part of New York’s economy. In 2010, New York produced 35.2 million pounds of grapes worth $68.4 million. We are 

the third largest grape producer in the country, which we are very, 

very proud of. 

17 

In Upstate New York, tourists flock to enjoy the use of our vineyards since we have some of the most scenic agricultural lands in 

the country. The juice grapes that Mr. Bencal’s farm produces are 

nutritious sorts of vitamins, nutrients and anti-oxidants, and with 

the obesity rate skyrocketing, pure grape juice provides a healthy 

and very delicious beverage option. 

Beyond farming the world’s best grape juices, he also serves as 

a leader to a number of New York’s organizations. He is chairman 

of the Lake Erie Regional Grape Extension Team, the District 2 director of the New York Farm Bureau and a delegate for the National Grape Cooperative. 

Mr. Bencal, welcome to the Senate Agriculture Committee. We 

thank you for traveling to D.C. today and to hear about your experience of New York grape growers as we prepare for the 2012 Farm 

Bill. 

Mr. BENCAL. Thank you very much, Senator. Pleased to be here. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Thank you very much. And our next 

panelist comes to us from Hickman, California. Great to see you. 

Mr. Robert Woolley is the owner of Dave Wilson Nursery, a multigenerational family business that grows planting stock for fruits 

and nut trees, both for orchard plantings and retail sales. Mr. 

Woolley has also served as a member of the National Clean Plant 

Network (Tier 2) Governance Committee for fruit trees and we are 

so pleased to have you here today. 

And also, Senator Lugar, you had introduced Mr. Glenn Abbett 

before. I do not know if there is anything else you would want to 

add at this point? 

Senator LUGAR. No, I just look forward to his testimony. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Terrific. And last, but certainly not 

least, we have Mr. Charles Wingard, who comes to us from, is it 

Pelion? 

Mr. WINGARD. Pelion. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Pelion. I am sorry, Pelion, South Carolina, where he is the director of field operations at W.P. Rawls and 

Sons. Mr. Wingard works to produce both value added and fresh 

cut products, including greens, peppers, zucchini, and I assume the 

great carrots that we just all received. This is terrific. We are going 

to eat well today. 

He serves as a member of the United Fresh Produce Association’s 

government relations committee. And I also understand that your 

daughter, Mary Grace, successfully lobbied for collard greens to become the state vegetable of South Carolina and she is just nine 

years old. Do I understand that? 

Mr. WINGARD. That is correct, yes, ma’am. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. We have an up-and-comer here. I think 

we may have a future member of the United States Senate coming 

up. Is she with you here today? 

Mr. WINGARD. No, ma’am. She is in a play tomorrow night and 

she had dress rehearsal last night. My wife did not think she 

should make the trip. I flew up. Am going back tonight. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Well, please give her our congratulations and best wishes in all of her efforts. 

Senator ROBERTS. Madam Chair? 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Yes. 

18 

Senator ROBERTS. Could I ask what part of South Carolina the 

gentleman is from? 

Mr. WINGARD. I am from the middle part of the state, Lexington 

County. 

Senator ROBERTS. Sure. 

Mr. WINGARD. Right in the Midlands. 

Senator ROBERTS. My wife is from South Carolina. 

Mr. WINGARD. I understand that. I think Richland County? 

Senator ROBERTS. She is from Sumter. 

Mr. WINGARD. Sumter. That’s the better part. 

Senator ROBERTS. But it is not too far away. I learned early you 

can take the girl out of the South, but not the South out of the girl. 

Mr. WINGARD. You got a good one. 

Senator ROBERTS. Good luck to you. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. She will be glad to know that collard 

greens is now the state vegetable of South Carolina—— 

Senator ROBERTS. I am sure she will. She will be delighted. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. —as a result of Mary Grace Wingard. 

So thank you very much and we would now like to turn to all of 

our witnesses. And of course, as we have indicated before, we ask 

for five minutes of verbal testimony so we have time for questions, 

and we would be glad to accept anything else that you have in 

writing. 

So welcome. Mr. Engelhard. 

STATEMENT OF DENNIS ENGELHARD, OWNER, ENGELHARD 

FAMILY FARMS, UNIONVILLE, MICHIGAN 

Mr. ENGELHARD. Good morning, Chairperson Stabenow, Ranking 

Member Roberts. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. You need to push your button. 

Mr. ENGELHARD. Committee members. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. There you go. 

Mr. ENGELHARD. There. We are on air. Thank you. I really appreciate the opportunity to talk to you this morning. As Senator 

Stabenow indicated, I do farm in Tuscola County, which is one of 

the largest agricultural counties in the country. It is also one of the 

leading dry bean producing counties in the country. 

I live on the farm that my great grandfather homesteaded in 

1892. My son will be the fifth generation of my family that has 

been involved in production agriculture. 

I am here representing dry beans and dry beans are responsible 

for about 18 percent of the specialty crop production in the United 

States. We have always been kind of a bystander in the farm legislation. We have typically used the restricted planning clause to 

take the place of other subsidies, direct payments, and we simply 

use that as a tool to have a stable market for the crop that we 

grow. 

In the last Farm Bill, we began to see through the Specialty Crop 

Block Grants how valuable research was in not only making our 

crop better, our industry better, but it also was, as you look at specialty crops as a whole, I think Senator Stabenow has seen how 

valuable they are to this country as a whole, and some the goals 

that our nation has. 

19 

So the first thing I would like to talk to you about today is the 

Pulse Health Initiative. The Pulse Health Initiative is a joint venture between the United States Dry Bean Council and the United 

States Dry Pea & Lentil Council. Pulse has grown in 24 states 

every year and they are processed in an additional 13 states. 

The PHI started with a planning session in March of 2010 at the 

ARS facility in Beltsville, Maryland. This planning session brought 

together leading pulse researchers from across the U.S. and included a number of ARS staffers as well. 

We looked at three significant research areas at this planning 

session, first of all, health and nutrition. Pulses are low in fat. 

They are a fundamental source of fiber, protein and they are very 

high in folates. Pulse crops provide an outstanding health and nutritional benefit that not only contribute to a healthy lifestyle, but 

can also help reduce serious health problems. 

The yearly indirect cost of obesity is seen as nearly $450 billion 

a year. Pulses could be part of that answer. While existing research 

of dry beans, dry peas, lentils and chick peas is certainly valuable, 

it is just the tip of the iceberg. There is much more to be studied 

in pulse crops in order to unlock their full potential for preventing 

nutrition-related health problems that plague our world. 

We also looked at sustainability. We talk about population 

growth. Nine billion people will be on our planet by the year 2050. 

This creates tremendous pressure to produce more food on fewer 

acres. Pulse crops can be an integral component in designing sustainable production systems that will effectively utilize limited land 

and water resources. 

For example, it takes 1,857 gallons to produce one pound of beef. 

It takes 469 gallons of water to produce one pound of chicken. It 

takes 216 gallons of water to produce a pound of soybeans, but it 

takes only 43 gallons of water to produce a pulse crop that is so 

valuable in our food system. 

We also looked at functionality and end use to better utilize the 

health and nutrition aspects and the sustainability aspects of 

pulses. We need additional research in the functional use of pulse 

crops such as milled flour and ingredients. We also need to develop 

more convenient ways to bring pulses into our diet. 

In short, the Pulse Health Initiative would allow us to gradually 

refocus our research efforts to make America more healthy and environmentally sustainable. I just also want to make a few points 

about some other things that are very valuable to us in the specialty crop industry. The Specialty Crop Block Program has been 

referred to repeatedly here this morning and it is being used very 

successfully. There are 66 applicants for block grants in Michigan 

this year. In the dry bean industry, we are using them to evaluate 

and further the use of more modern practices like direct harvest 

and also narrow rows to help producers keep edible beans in their 

production systems. 

We also just want to laud the value of the foreign market program—Foreign Market Development program and the MAP, Market Access Program. These are effective partnerships for many specialty crops and certainly in dry beans where we export one-third 

of our crop and contribute to the balance of trade. 

20 

The only other thing I want to mention is the crop insurance. 

Farmers really do not mind bearing the cost of their risk management, as long as they have effective programs. Crop insurance has 

done a very nice job for us. The specialty crops need to be reviewed 

to make sure that there are opportunities to protect our risks in 

the face of bad weather. 

In conclusion, the Pulse Health Initiative, I believe, is the shining star of my presentation this morning. I would encourage all of 

you to become fully aware of the benefits that are available 

through that program and that you would consider using it as part 

of your vocabulary as you develop this Farm Bill. Effective farm 

legislation has been a real key in keeping cheap, safe, American— 

cheap food in front of all Americans and we appreciate the efforts 

that have been made in that in the past and we look forward to 

the continuation of that in the 2012 Farm Bill. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Engelhard can be found on page 

58 in the appendix.] 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Thank you very much. Ms. Tait. 

STATEMENT OF KIM TAIT, OWNER, TAIT FARM FOODS, INC., 

CENTRE HALL, PENNSYLVANIA 

Ms. TAIT. Good morning. Thank you. Chairwoman Stabenow, 

Ranking Member Senator Roberts, and Senator Casey and the 

other members of the Senate Agricultural Committee, I am Kim 

Tait and I am the owner of Tait Farm Foods. I am testifying on 

behalf of the thousands of small and medium size organic family 

farmers across this country. Thank you for allowing me to provide 

testimony regarding the importance of organic agriculture and specialty crops. It is truly an honor to be here. 

As Senator Casey mentioned, I own and operate a small family 

farm in Central Pennsylvania. It is a third generation farm. We 

have a diversified business and we have a certified organic farm. 

We operate 10 acres of organic vegetable, fruit and greenhouse production. Our primary market is a 200-member CSA and we serve 

three restaurants. We go to a local farmer’s market and have an 

on-farm retail store as well. 

We also manufacture specialty foods on the farm in a small facility and have a retail store and greenhouse operation. One of the 

great gifts that we have had is we are on a main road and we have 

had the good fortune to be able to support over 100 other local regional producers of food products, as well as artisan crafts made in 

our region. 

We also have a mail order business and a wholesale business for 

our food products. And one of our roles that we have seen is we 

have grown and expanded and evolved is that we provide education 

and tours and research. We work collaboratively with Penn State 

University, local government and community organizations. 

As a representative of organic producers, I want to emphasize 

that we have been and continue to be the fastest growing sector of 

the agricultural marketplace. Our successes come from the growing 

consumer demand for healthy food and we serve local, national and 

international markets. Our customers want to be assured of organic authenticity for our products and are willing to pay a premium for the integrity provided by the USDA Organic seal. 

21 

Our industry has generated double digit growth in the market 

for nearly two decades and during the recent recession, we experienced 8 percent growth. I have had the good fortune to participate 

in several of the USDA designed—programs designed to help organic small and mid-size growers. These include the Organic Cost 

Share Program, the EQUIP High Tunnel Grants, SARE Research 

Programs and the NRCS Soil Conservation Services. And we have 

also worked closely with Land Grant Agricultural Extension. I am 

also very proud to say that we have recently been approved to accept food stamps for our CSA. 

The USDA’s programs provide significant help for organic producers. They allow us to grow our businesses by providing seed 

money to take the next steps. We see them as a hand up and not 

a hand out. They have become firmly rooted in sound agricultural 

and business practices for most farms that have received them. 

The Organic Cost Share Program is helping thousands of new 

and small farmers come into and stay in the growing organic marketplace. An example on my farm of the value of these programs 

is with the EQUIP High Tunnel Grant. This new growing structure 

will allow us to double our winter and early spring greens production. This is a good investment for both the government and us and 

will continue to provide a return on investment for the next 30 

years. 

Equally important, our ability to accept food stamps will help us 

expand our market and allow families and individuals with limited 

means to purchase locally grown organic foods. This is a big deal 

for our community. 

Successful and diversified farming operations create jobs for 

rural communities, and they also train young farmers. The average 

age of a farmer is 57 years old. This should frighten all of us. And 

as Secretary Vilsack has said, if you think dependence on foreign 

oil is bad, you have not seen anything compared to the dependence 

on foreign food. We need dedicated young people tilling the earth; 

there is just no doubt. 

And young people seem to be drawn to organic agriculture. We 

see it with internships and we have 10 students every year applying for a one-internship opportunity on our farm. We believe it is 

essential to continue to have oversight and regulation from the National Organic Program. This governing body assures consumers 

around the world that they can buy organic food with confidence. 

Organic growth is being driven by consumers and we are working hard to meet the demand. Here is how I believe Congress can 

help. Continue to fairly fund the National Organic Program. Support new and beginning farmers with the Cost Share Program. 

Continue to help organic farmers take the next steps with a hand 

up. Support on-farm innovation through programs like EQUIP and 

renewable green energy projects. 

Simplify the granting process and make it farmer friendly. The 

current value added producer grants have a deadline of August 

29th. It is the height of the growing season. Base grants on sound 

business proposals rather than feasibility studies. 

By and large, we are a group of doers. I do not really need 

$100,000 to study something, but if you invest in my project, I will 

make it happen and get it up and running. Support organic export 

22 

markets. It is 8 percent of our business and continues to grow. 

Make funding and tax incentives for farmland preservation and 

conservation easements permanent. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. I am going to need to have you wrap 

up. 

Ms. TAIT. Oh, I am sorry. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Thank you. 

Ms. TAIT. Okay. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Yes, that is all right. 

Ms. TAIT. Can I just make my closing? 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Sure. 

Ms. TAIT. Excuse me. We are all in this together and each of us 

has a role to play. In nature, we know that diversity creates stability. I believe the same is true for agriculture. It is the diversity 

of our farms and farming systems that make American agriculture 

great. 

Organic agriculture is an important part of the future of food 

from local to global. We ask that we get supported fairly in the 

2012 Farm Bill so we can do our part. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Tait can be found on page 62 in 

the appendix.] 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Thank you. Thank you very much. Mr. 

Bencal. 

STATEMENT OF PAUL BENCAL, OWNER, PAUL BENCAL FARM, 

RANSOMVILLE, NEW YORK 

Mr. BENCAL. Chairwoman Stabenow, Ranking Member Roberts, 

and members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to 

discuss grape grower priorities and the National Grape Cooperative 

as you work to develop the next Farm Bill. I have also submitted 

a written testimony, slightly longer than my oral will be. 

Welch’s National Grapes wholly-owned marketing cooperative 

processes and markets our members’ grapes in the United States 

and 51 other countries. While Welch’s is a well-known American 

brand, its owners are family farmers with an average farm size of 

40 acres. I appreciate the opportunity to submit testimony and request that the statement be made part of the official record. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Without objection. 

Mr. BENCAL. Specialty crops—I am sorry. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. That is fine. We are just putting it in 

the record. Thank you. 

Mr. BENCAL. Okay. Specialty crops do not receive direct government subsidies and each year there are significant risks that growers in one or more areas in the United States will suffer weatherrelated damage. I and many other farmers are in business today 

because crop insurance and disaster—of crop insurance and disaster relief benefits. 

The SURE program in the 2008 Farm Bill was designed to eliminate the need for ad hoc disaster relief. While payments were slow 

and did not provide enough relief, there were growers who benefitted from SURE. There is no baseline funding for the SURE program and after September 30, 2011. I speak for more than myself 

when I tell you that it is critical to a continued U.S. grown food 

supply that growers are able to purchase affordable crop insurance 

23 

and that SURE or another disaster program is incorporated into 

the next Farm Bill. 

It is important to note that there are inequitable differences between program crops listed on a Chicago Board of Trade and specialty crops. One example is that the posted price for grapes are 

calculated by first deducting a per ton cost of harvesting and hauling while crops on the Chicago Board of Trade are insured at the 

harvest price without deducting harvest costs from the insurable 

price. 

A more equitable treatment would be to treat grapes in the same 

manner. Growers and an adjuster would determine the actual dollar amount of harvesting and hauling costs which were avoided because of crop loss and then deducted from the eligible indemnity 

payment. 

Juice grapes, like grains, are mechanically harvested, resulting 

in a per acre cost of harvest that does not change much just because the yield has been reduced by Mother Nature. The Market 

Access Program, MAP, has a positive effect on U.S. trade deficit. 

According to the USDA, between 1985, when MAP was created, 

and 2008, agriculture imports increased by 300 percent. 

MAP has significantly contributed to increased consumption of 

Concord grapes in Japan through advertising and sales promotions. 

Now, over 92 percent of retailers, or nearly 12,000 outlets, carry 

Welch’s brand Concord juice grapes. Since 2007, Welch’s has seen 

exports to Japan grow by 46 percent. The program has been funded 

annually since fiscal year 2006 at $200 million. 

We request that MAP funds are maintained at least at current 

levels in the next Farm Bill and that branded cooperatives continue to be eligible for MAP. 

Funding for the former Viticulture Consortium no longer exists. 

Continued research is critical if U.S. growers will successfully compete in a world marketplace. The consortium established in 1996 

funded grape-related research in all states from all disciplines. 

Over the past 15 years, an average of 1.2 million was distributed 

annually. 

The program has been especially valuable and effective for the 

grape growing industry because funds were directed to top priority 

research. While the largest single source of the industry-directed 

research funding, the seed funds that the consortium provided were 

often supplemented by state and private funds, extending the reach 

and benefits of the program. Without federal funding, additional 

state and private funds are in danger of elimination. For these reasons, it is important that research funding for National Institute 

of Food and Agriculture is included in the Farm Bill. 

In recent years, aggressive regulatory efforts have been initiated, 

affecting nearly every aspect of U.S. agriculture. We appreciate the 

oversight of this Committee to closely monitor the impact of the 

regulatory burdens and I thank you for acting on reducing the Regulatory Burdens Act, H.R. 872. 

On October 31, 2011, duplicative enforcement layers on thousands of pesticide applicators will expose them to legal jeopardy 

through citizen suits. Action taken by this Committee to approve 

H.R. 872 is an important step to fixing the duplicity. It is critical 

that the Senate pass legislation before October 31st. 

24 

And finally, as part of the Farm Bill debate, farmer-owner cooperatives are concerned that all forms of fruits, vegetables, tree 

nuts are eligible for USDA programs. I want to thank you for this 

opportunity to testify. Thank you for your leadership in assisting 

American farmers and ranchers. And I must comment that you 

have already allowed David Johnson to leave the room and from 

what I have heard, we probably should not let him leave the building in jeopardy of the 2012 Farm Bill. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. That is right. 

Mr. BENCAL. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Paul Bencal can be found on 

page 52 in the appendix.] 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Thank you very much. Mr. Woolley. 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT WOOLLEY, OWNER, DAVE WILSON 

NURSERY, HICKMAN, CALIFORNIA 

Mr. WOOLLEY. Chairman Stabenow, Ranking Member Roberts 

and Senator Lugar and guests, thank you for the opportunity to 

testify today. I am Robert Woolley, owner of Dave Wilson Nursery, 

a California nursery that grows approximately five million deciduous fruit, nut and shade trees annually for commercial orchardists 

and the home garden trade. 

I am also testifying on behalf of the American Nursery and Landscape Association, our national trade organization, and its state 

counterpart, the California Association of Nurseries and Garden 

Centers. We are grateful meaningful specialty crop provisions were 

part of the 2008 Farm Bill. 

I would like to focus on two section of the Farm Bill that are of 

critical importance to specialty crop producers. Title X, Section 

10201 provided funding for plant pest and disease initiatives. Section 10202 funded the National Clean Plant Network. These sections acknowledge the enormous keep-us-up-at-night threat that 

foreign pests, plant pests and pathogens pose to U.S. specialty 

crops and markets. 

Section 10201 has funded a range of plant pests and disease programs in partnership with industry and state collaborators. Funded programs address six broad goal areas. Under goal four, safeguarding nursery production, funded initiates are laying the 

groundwork for a modernized nursery certification system. Goal 

six, enhance mitigation, provides better tools to better, to more 

quickly detect, contain and eradicate new pest introductions. Perhaps the best recent example of a program’s success involves Plum 

Pox Virus, which I will go into later. 

To us, Section 10202, the National Clean Plant Network, stands 

as one of the brightest success stories of the specialty crop title. I 

am an active member in this effort and now serve on the network’s 

governance committee for fruit trees. The network provides technical expertise, equipment and capacity to test mother plants from 

which nursery stocks are propagated to determine if they are free 

of disease. 

If no clean plants are available, the network can eliminate virus 

and other disease causing pathogens via heat treatment, chemotherapy and other methods that cannot be implemented at the 

farm level. The Clean Plant Network provides apple, peach, plum, 

25 

cherry, grape, citrus and berry growers with safe access to the 

world’s newest varieties and supports profitability and global competitiveness. 

Farm Bill resources have enabled robust coordination of an effective national network. Continued funding of the Clean Plant under 

the Farm Bill is absolutely essential. The eradication of Plum Pox 

Virus is a dramatic success story for 10201 and 10202 programs. 

This serious disease of stone fruit was first detected in the U.S. in 

1999. Left unaddressed, the U.S. would have faced the same devastation that swept through parts of Europe where yield losses 

reached 80 to 100 percent among susceptible crops. From 2009 through 2011, more than $4.5 million in 10201 funding went towards detection surveys and to manage immediate 

threats to growers in Pennsylvania, in New York and Michigan. In 

2009, USDA and state partners used 10201 funding to complete the 

intense monitoring and declare eradication of Plum Pox in Pennsylvania, which by the way, was only the second time in history that 

a virus disease was eliminated in a country. 

Without 10201 funding, eradication efforts in Pennsylvania may 

not have succeeded. To quote Benjamin Franklin’s most famous 

adage, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. The overall 

cost of the Pennsylvania Plum Pox eradication effort was close to 

$50 million. The Clean Plant Network is now a proactive line of defense against this happening again and the $5 million in annual 

funding is a well spent ounce of prevention that enables safe importation of plant materials and reduces the temptation for illegal 

suitcase importations that threaten our industry. 

On a negative note, the full potential of these Farm Bill programs has been hindered by USDA legal opinion that has held up 

money for these and certain other programs. Congress has fixed 

the problem a couple of times, but only temporarily, leaving these 

programs subject to stop and start delays and uncertainty. We urge 

Congress to enact a permanent fix. 

In conclusion, the 2008 Farm Bill finally gave specialty crop producers a meaningful place in the Farm Bill. These industries are 

roughly half the value of all U.S. crop production. And by the way, 

nurseries are about a third of specialty crops. They are high-valued 

crops generating jobs and economic activity in rural community. 

For our industry the plant pest and clean plant provisions have 

been among the most beneficial. 

We hope that you will be able to provide continued and improved 

funding in the next Farm Bill. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Woolley can be found on page 74 

in the appendix.] 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Thank you very much. Mr. Abbett. 

STATEMENT OF GLENN ABBETT, MANAGER, ABBETT FARMS, 

LLC, LACROSSE, INDIANA 

Mr. ABBETT. I would like to thank the Committee for this opportunity to talk, and especially Senator Lugar for your kind words 

and for mentioning my son, Casey, who now has quite a story to 

go back home in Indiana to tell to his friends. 

Good morning. My name is Glenn Abbett. I am a farmer from 

LaCrosse, Indiana. I am here in support of Senator Lugar’s FarmVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:36 Mar 30, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\71635.TXT MICHA
26 

ing Flexibility Act. It would cut federal spending, add American 

jobs, improve the environment and protect the fresh produce industry from competition on subsidized farm ground. 

Let me start with my farm. On our family farm, we grow corn, 

seed corn, soybeans, wheat and about 650 acres of processed tomatoes. My tomato production is under contract with the Red Gold, 

Inc., an Indiana tomato processing company. 

I am here today on behalf of the American Fruit and Vegetable 

Processor and Growers Coalition. We see greater flexibility to grow 

fruit and vegetables for processing. Since 1996, farm policy generally has prohibited the production of fruit and vegetables on base 

acreage, though there are exceptions. This restriction was adopted 

to prevent producers receiving farm program support from competing with farmers growing the fresh fruit and vegetable market. 

The prohibition on growing fruit and vegetables was not a significant problem until the 2002 Farm Bill, where soybeans became a 

program crop. Virtually all of the quality farm land in states like 

Indiana now have program base. The problem has three dimensions, first, program restrictions. I have gradually taken over our 

family farm from my father. His producer history has been lost. 

Second, fear of base acreage loss. Like most mid-west farmers, I 

rent much of my farm ground. Quite rationally, landlords fear fruit 

and vegetable production could cause them loss of base acreage. So 

even if they have farm history, many will not allow me to grow 

vegetables on their land I rent from them. 

Third, the restriction is a threat to my market. As time goes on, 

about 5 percent of the mid-western vegetable producers stopped 

growing vegetables each year. That means that each year it will be 

harder for our processor market to stay in business because they 

cannot contract enough for production. 

Before the last Farm Bill gave flexibility, many processors were 

unable to contract for all the production that they needed. Now the 

problem is only occurring with dry beans because they were not included in the pilot flexibility. The last Farm Bill addressed these 

problems by creating a pilot project that also requires fruit and 

vegetable production under the pilot project to be under contract 

for processing. In reviewing performance of the pilot project, USDA 

concluded that it showed modest consumer benefit, real benefit to 

fruit and vegetable growers and processors in the Midwest and no 

harm to the fresh produce industry. 

Of course, participation in the pilot program also saved taxpayer 

money because producers like myself opted out of the program participation on those acres. So the pilot program has been a big success. 

We want to thank Senator Lugar for introducing the Farming 

Flexibility Act of 2011, as well as Chairwoman Stabenow, who has 

previously co-sponsored this legislation. The Farming Flexibility 

Act of 2011 would fix this three-fold problem by allowing an acre 

for acre opt-out from the farm program for production of fruits and 

vegetables under contract for processing. 

My fellow witness from South Carolina is here to carry a message of opposition to allowing production of vegetables for processing. In every county in South Carolina, USDA rules say farmers 

may produce fruit and vegetables for the fresh or processed market 

27 

under the double cropping exception, so they receive program payments on the very acres used to produce vegetables for the fresh 

or processed market. 

We are not asking for the flexibility South Carolina has. In the 

Midwest, we just want to be able to opt out of the program on an 

acre-for-acre basis to grow vegetables for processing. That would 

save taxpayer dollars, save American jobs, allow environmentally 

desirable crop rotations and benefit the consumer, all without harm 

to the fresh produce industry. That is precisely what the Farming 

Flexibility Act would do. 

Thank you for considering my views. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Abbett can be found on page 42 

in the appendix.] 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Thank you very much. Mr. Wingard. 

STATEMENT OF CHARLES WINGARD, DIRECTOR OF FIELD OPERATIONS, W.P. RAWLS AND SONS, PELION, SOUTH CAROLINA 

Mr. WINGARD. Thank you, Madam Chair and Ranking Member 

Roberts and members of the Committee, for allowing me to testify 

today. 

My family specializes in southern leafy greens such as collards, 

kale, mustard and turnip greens. We produce a variety of summer 

vegetables in season and also have a few other year-round vegetables. I work with eight other family members everyday to oversee 

operations on my farms. Therefore, I am pleased to be here. 

We have farm operations in South Carolina and Mississippi. We 

have relationships or contract growers in Florida, Virginia, New 

York, Georgia and Texas. Our produce is marketed and delivered 

throughout the eastern United States and about half of our leafy 

greens are washed and packaged in our own facility and sold as 

fresh cut chopped greens under our own labels. 

As you mentioned, Madam Chair, I am also involved in our national trade organization, United Fresh Association. We represent 

1,700 growers, packers, shippers, fresh cut processors, distributors 

and marketers of fresh fruits and vegetables, accounting for the 

vast majority of produce sold in the United States. 

My family strongly supports the efforts of the Specialty Crop 

Farm Bill allowance and all the organizations that they represent. 

As a larger grower, I am pleased that this Committee has sought 

out and is getting the input of small farmers and organic farmers. 

I think they are very important in the makeup of the agricultural 

fabric of this country. 

My written testimony covers a broad spectrum of issues that are 

important to the specialty crop industry, but I want to touch on a 

few. Madam Chair, I thought you did an excellent job in summing 

up how specialty crops became included in the Farm Bill in ’08. I 

would be remiss if I did not add to your comments. 

A lot of people in ’07 and ’08 contributed to the cause, but much 

of the success of our efforts can be attributed directly to you because of your leadership during that debate. For that we offer our 

sincere thanks. 

A few components I would like to consider for ’12 going forward. 

Specialty Crop Block Grants have served as the cornerstone of the 

28 

’08 Farm Bill. These block grants have presented the best example 

to drive local solutions, opportunities and priorities to specialty 

crop stakeholders in each state and should be enhanced in the ’12 

Farm Bill. 

The fresh fruit and vegetable program is another important program in the Farm Bill. I gave you some snacks today and that is 

a result of that funding in the Farm Bill. With regards to the ’12 

Farm Bill, I would like to highlight that this program will reach 

more than four million low-income elementary school children nationwide this coming year. It is highly effective and in rural South 

Carolina anyway, at least in South Carolina, in rural South Carolina is very visible. This program helps to increase young children’s 

consumption of fruit and vegetables at school. My state of South Carolina will receive $2.7 million this year to 

implement this program and this will allow 128 of our elementary 

schools to participate, touching 40,000 students. The average rate 

of fruit and reduced lunch in those schools is over 85 percent. 

For many of these students, if not all, but for a very—probably 

the very biggest majority of them, they will not be exposed to fresh 

fruits and vegetables in any other way in their life because—or in 

their young lives to this point because of their socioeconomic status. We have been a leader in this program and have worked with 

our state to educate schools in how to ensure successful implementation. 

We have traveled to school districts all over South Carolina and 

have helped them implement it. We have developed fresh cut vegetables and fruits and kid-friendly packages, such as you see and 

have, to offer to the schools and to their lunch programs. This is 

a win for agriculture, a win for the produce industry, for our children and for public health. 

Finally, let me touch on research, which is both the foundation 

and catalyst for growth and the advancement of any industry. For 

the American specialty crop industry, successful research projects 

have the ability to reduce the future burden of the Federal Government through greater public access to healthy products, enhanced 

exports to growing markets, pest and disease resistant crops and 

reduced resource consumption and variety of other beneficial applications. However, in order to offer these benefits and reach these 

goals, U.S. specialty crops require an enhanced commitment to research and extension activities focused on their priorities. 

We look forward to working with the Committee on the development of the next Farm Bill. We ask that you continue to build on 

the foundation and investment of the ’08 Farm Bill and ensure that 

our important issues are appropriately addressed as you move forward. However, we do realize that Congress is facing fiscal constraints and we ask that you help keep us in mind. If there is pain 

to be felt, honestly I think the best thing is to share the pain. 

Thank you, ma’am. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wingard can be found on page 

65 in the appendix.] 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Well, thank you very much. Senator 

Roberts and I were commenting on the packaging, on the Carrots 

for Kids in School, talking about sports candy. It is actually very— 

I want to compliment you. It is a very smart packaging, I think, 

29 

and very appealing. So I am going to congratulate you on that. It 

is one of the great partnerships that we have had in the Farm Bill 

between our growers and our schools and I think it is going to 

make a difference. So thanks very much. 

Thanks very much to all of you. Mr. Engelhard, let me start with 

you, because you grow specialty crops and also program crops, so 

you are really in a unique position, I think, to speak about what 

works and what does not work. I am wondering, from your perspective, which of the programs that we have in place right now have 

actually been most important to you in supporting your work in 

terms of as a dry bean grower? 

Mr. ENGELHARD. From a news standpoint, the Specialty Crop 

Block Grants, I think we have heard across the whole panel here 

today, seem to be very successful, because I think it allows industries, different producer groups, to really look at what issues they 

might have and apply in a very timely and methodical manner to 

get some of this funding. And then since they have put a lot of effort into getting that funding, they make a lot of effort to make it 

a good program and use the funds responsibly. 

But certainly we have also heard across this panel how important MAP and FMD have been to many of the specialty crops and 

that has been on a long-term basis. Again, it has such importance 

for export, for our commodities, but also for our balance of trade 

as a nation. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. As you indicated, the importance, I 

think, of a Specialty Crop Block Grant is that it does allow producers state by state to determine what is most important to them 

and I appreciate your comments on that. 

I wonder, to anyone on the panel, I would like to have you speak 

about the current safety net programs and helping you to manage 

risk in your operations and what do you think is most effective. 

We, I think, as a Committee, really identify risk management efforts as being critical in terms of support for our farmers and the 

safety net obviously is critical. 

I wonder if anyone would like to speak, or if all of you would like 

to in terms of which safety net programs are most important in 

helping you to manage risk? 

Mr. ENGELHARD. Senator Stabenow, I will take that a little bit, 

since you referred to the fact that I grow both specialty and row 

crops. The row crops, the program crops, have been very functional 

and the programs continue to evolve in ways that help us to manage our risk very thoroughly. 

The specialty crops, since there are less of them, and since there 

is less of a base in edible beans, if we want to grow a new edible 

bean because there is a market opportunity, we have to grow that 

for three years before we can get any kind of insurance on it at all. 

So that institutes some real risk. 

The other thing, in some of the program crops, we now have organic prices for crop insurance. In other words, there is always a 

price differential between organic production and standard conventional production, and now that has been recognized in the corn 

and soybean crop, but again in the specialty crops, those things 

have not evolved. 

30 

So taking a closer look at those specialty crops and how they can 

be insured to make sure that the producers’ revenue stream is 

taken care of would be very valuable. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Thank you. Anyone else? Yes, Mr. 

Bencal. 

Mr. BENCAL. If I may, when we first started assessing the advantages for crop insurance within the grape industry, especially with 

juice grapes, several years ago, I would venture to say probably 15, 

20 years ago we started discussion with the RMA office on the classification of grapes. We first started with I believe there were two, 

maybe three varieties described as far as the grape industry. Now 

we are up to as far as 14 different varieties. 

We are still not done with RMA yet. It was a hard fight to get 

them to believe that one size does not fit all, especially when it 

comes to specialty crops. It varies not only from one variety to another, but one crop to another. Tomatoes, peppers and cucumbers 

are a lot different than—they have different requirements than 

grapes do. Their market is different. 

They have also come to understand that a variety of grapes, Concords and Niagaras more specifically, you can use them for juice 

grapes, but you can also use as wine grapes, as well. The price difference is quite substantial. 

It has been a long process and there is more work to be done, 

but they are coming around. But it is just a slow, tedious process 

to get them to understand. I would like to see that sped up a little 

bit. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Thank you very much. I have run out 

of my time and so I am going to turn to Senator Roberts at this 

point in time for questions. 

[Pause.] 

Senator ROBERTS. Pardon me. I was looking for Spartacus here 

on sports candy. On the back it says, hey kids, I’m Spartacus, if 

you want to become a superhero by eating lots of different fruits 

and veggies, or what we eat at Lazy Town. 

Where is Lazy Town in South Carolina? I know where Lazy 

Town is here. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. WINGARD. I think it is a fictional cartoon series. It has been 

in Europe more than United States. It has kind of forayed into the 

United States. 

Senator ROBERTS. W.P. Rawl.com dash or slash Lazy Town. That 

is very—we were wondering if you were Spartacus here on this 

sample. 

Thank you to the panel. Mr. Engelhard, I feel compelled to say 

I feel your pulse. But rather than edible beans or something that 

you could market as a special product that would provide energy, 

et cetera, et cetera, and I am not familiar with all the attributes 

of your product, but there is a great market for that. Why do you 

call it pulse? 

Mr. ENGELHARD. Pulse is—— 

Senator ROBERTS. No, why do you call it pulse? If you call it— 

jazz it up a little bit, because I would imagine nine out of 10 people 

involved in agriculture say, why don’t you call it X, what, bean or 

31 

X edible bean, or superhero protein bean or something? I am just 

interested. 

Mr. ENGELHARD. And that is exactly why we need the Pulse 

Health Initiative, because we need to be more creative in our marketing efforts. 

Senator ROBERTS. All right, I appreciate that. Ms. Tait, the first 

commercial I ever made in running for office was asking where is 

the next generation of farmers going to come from. The fact that 

you pointed out that you have an 8 percent growth in regards to 

organic right in the middle of a recession I think is remarkable. By 

the way, the average age then was 52 as well, so we are sort of 

holding our own to some extent. 

Let’s see, Mr. Bencal, you talked about that consortium that 

started in 1996. I just want you to know I had something to do 

with that. At any rate, Mr. Woolley, we will get after the legal beagles that are causing you so many problems. And then Mr. Abbett, 

you really have—if you think flexibility was a challenge for you 

now, you should have been here in ’96. That was a little—there 

was remarkable change, but I know exactly what you are talking 

about and we will be trying to address that. 

Mr. Wingard, let’s see, Lazy Town, I have already asked that 

question. I think you probably hit it on the head in terms of our 

budget responsibilities. We know that Agriculture will contribute. 

We must, but everything should be on the table and it should not 

be disproportionate with other programs. 

And I have been trying to tell people, quit talking about specific 

programs. Let’s just say everything is on the table and then let this 

Committee do it, because we have a lot of experience on this Committee in regards to what we should be doing, as opposed just to 

a numbers game. 

I’ve only got a minute left, so I am going to ask you to zip 

through this last question real quick. At the end of the day, what 

keeps you up at night? Is it labor, FDA, EPA, pest and disease 

threats, Mother Nature, Federal Government? What is the number 

one challenge or risk that impacts your business the most? Go. 

Mr. ENGELHARD. Marketing. 

Ms. TAIT. Mother Nature. 

Mr. BENCAL. Weather. 

Mr. WOOLLEY. Immigration. 

Senator ROBERTS. Really? Okay. 

Mr. ABBETT. Labor. Planting prohibition. 

Mr. WINGARD. Government responding to sensationalism in the 

media. 

Senator ROBERTS. I do not know how to fix that one. 

[Applause.] 

Senator ROBERTS. I would like to. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. We actually can commiserate with you 

on that. 

Senator ROBERTS. As a member of the Fourth Estate myself, I do 

feel your pain and pulse, or whatever. But at any rate, well thank 

you for that. I think a lot of this, Madam Chairwoman, is the impact of crop insurance and how it fits in and the problems that we 

have had in regards to crop insurance. And being part of the 

Carey-Roberts Crop Insurance Reform back in 2002, we need to do 

32 

that as opposed to cutting crop insurance by $12 billion in the last 

two Farm Bills. That was a terrible mistake. 

But then, all right, I am done. I appreciate you all coming in. 

Thank you for your contribution. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Thank you very much and I could not 

agree more about crop insurance. That is a major focus of our discussion and work going forward. Senator Bennet. 

Senator BENNET. First of all, Madam Chair, I want to thank you 

for putting together this excellent panel. Your testimony has been 

terrific and I actually had thought that every single one of my 

questions had already been answered as you testified, so thank 

you. 

And I am grateful that—Mr. Woolley, I had not intended to ask 

a question about this, but since you raised it, two weeks ago, I 

think, or maybe three, I was on a conference call with growers from 

Colorado and they were saying to me, Michael, we are going out 

of business this year because of labor shortages. 

I wonder if you would talk a little bit about your observation that 

immigration is what keeps you up at night and what you would 

like to see fixed. 

Mr. WOOLLEY. Well, we would like to see a way to continue to 

farm using legal labor. The setup now is impossible. It has been 

broken for decades. It is an untenable situation. 

Senator BENNET. Tell us more about why it is impossible, why 

it is broken, and Mr. Abbett, if you want to get into this too, please 

do. 

Mr. WOOLLEY. We cannot get legal labor to come into our farm, 

frankly. The mechanisms to provide labor are just not adequate. 

People do not—people who are documented generally do not come 

out to our farms. We are increasingly reliant on prime labor contractors and it is a very fluid situation. 

We accept the documents that are presented to us and we try to 

do a very good job in that, but regardless, there is such rapid turnover. We know that some of these people are undocumented. 

Senator BENNET. Mr. Abbett, I see you nodding your head. 

Mr. ABBETT. Yeah, I agree with him completely. We run into the 

same issue. The regulations around verifying legitimacy of our immigrant help has really caused us to rely on crew leaders as well. 

And speaking to the crew leaders, the difficulties of getting people 

from other countries to come here that are willing to do the work 

that has to be done, we cannot do the things that we do on our 

farm without these people. There just are not willing people in our 

communities that do these jobs and these people are willing. 

But it is becoming increasingly hard to get those people here for 

fear of crossing the borders, fear of filing out the required paperwork properly and I think we have to fix—we have to make it possible for us to get folks into this country that are willing to do this 

work in a fluid fashion where they can go back to the countries 

where they come from, but be able to come back on a yearly basis 

and do the work that we desperately need done on our farms. 

Senator BENNET. Mr. Wingard? 

Mr. WINGARD. Thank you. If I could, I would like to answer your 

question as well. H–2A is expensive and broken. H–2B is about to 

33 

become expensive and broken. What we need is a reasonable solution to a serious problem. 

I want to give you—I want to share with you a real life experience we had about a year and a half ago. We petitioned for 40 H– 

2Bs to work in my processing plant. We had to advertise to U.S. 

workers. We had 81 people come in and apply for the job the first 

week of January. The job did not start until the first week of April, 

but the first week of January we had 81 interviews. Thirty-one people out of 81 took the job. 

So my 40 visas were reduced. As a direct reduction, they were 

reduced to nine, by simple math. Three months go by and when we 

had the processing line installed and the crops had been grown and 

ready to harvest in the field and we called these people to come to 

work, I get my nine visas from Mexico into the country. Out of 31 

people that took the job, only 13 showed up the first day of work. 

So the first day we tried to run the line, instead of having 40 

people to run that processing line, I am only down—I only have 22. 

Within two weeks, the 13 U.S. referrals are down to about two, 

three, maybe four and within six weeks, we were down to one. 

At the end of the contract, which is nine months, 10 months 

maybe, we had to let the U.S. referral go because the contract was 

over. We offered them a job because they were really a pretty good 

worker and turned the job down. They wanted to go home and get 

a check. 

There is similar nightmare stories concerning H–2A, maybe even 

worse. 

Senator BENNET. Well, my time is expired, Madam Chair. I appreciate everybody’s testimony. I think it is so important for us to 

be having this conversation because Washington is averting its 

eyes and pretending this issue does not exist, and there is nothing 

that says that these jobs need to be in the United States. And I 

want them to be in the United States, but if we do not fix this 

problem, my concern is that these jobs are going to migrate over 

this border and we are never going to get them back again. 

So thank you for being here today. Thank you for your testimony. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Thank you very much. This is a serious 

challenge. Senator Lugar. 

Senator LUGAR. Mr. Abbett, in your original testimony, you had 

to summarize some very complex points, so I wanted to give you 

an opportunity to expand a bit on this. It has been illustrated already. You are farming 4,300 acres and that includes corn and soybeans and crops that are very common, certainly in our State of Indiana, but likewise 650 acres or so of tomatoes. 

What are the problems? I sort of glossed over this because it is 

very complex for somebody just to sign up to get acres in the tomato program, that it affects a so-called base that we have been 

talking about. You have indicated, if you are successful in signing 

up with tomatoes, it actually saves taxpayers’ money because you 

come out from underneath some of this. 

But explain, if you will, this procedure and why it is cumbersome 

and why we ought to reform it. 

Mr. ABBETT. Thank you for the question. Prior to 2002, the procedure was extremely difficult because we—I mean, I am sorry. 

34 

After 2002, prior to 2008, the procedure was very difficult because 

in the State of Indiana, when soybeans became a program crop, 

there virtually was no acres available outside of my own producer 

history and my farm’s history. 

And my farm’s producer history, which at one time included my 

dad, was severely hit when he left the farming business, or the vegetable side of the farming business. And therefore, I was left with 

a very minimal number of producer acres to raise my specialty tomato crops. 

Senator LUGAR. Why would your dad leaving make any difference? 

Mr. ABBETT. He had producer history tied to his Social Security 

Number. 

Senator LUGAR. Personally? 

Mr. ABBETT. Personally, in his personal name, and when he left 

the operation, those producer history acres left with him. 

Senator LUGAR. I underline that because most of us do not understand, you have a death in the family or somebody decides to 

go abroad or so forth, suddenly you lose this history and therefore, 

you lose the ability even to produce on your land. 

Mr. ABBETT. Yeah, that is the key to the whole problem. As people retire—in one instance, I had a fellow grower that was killed. 

Those acres are lost forever. The acres available are shrinking 

every year; that is a fact. The pilot program helped fix that problem to a certain extent. 

There are still some issues with the pilot program that we deal 

with, the deadline, the fact that landlords have to sign on and the 

fact that there is a lottery system in the event that you go through 

the acres or more acres than what are allotted for the state. 

But the pilot program was a big success in giving us the flexibility to plant our fruits and vegetables on base acres. It allowed 

me to go out and find farms that were environmentally advantageous, that were better farms to raise tomatoes on and gave my 

land that I had to rotate on hard ability to rest and that minimizes 

disease. 

So the flexibility, the project flexibility has been a huge success 

on my farm. 

Senator LUGAR. Let me just interrupt to say, it is almost inconceivable in the common sense of the American public that a farmer 

would not be able to plant tomatoes or beans or corn or what have 

you on his land without these cumbersome restrictions and all 

sorts of provisos, including the death of a member of the family and 

so forth. 

Quite apart from the fact made by the Chairman and the Ranking Member, that crop insurance really has not covered everything 

on the farm. It has not been whole farm insurance. It has been a 

crop or a specific situation. This is why I am hopeful, and this is 

why the testimony is important of all of you today. 

As we get into the new Farm Bill, we understand that there are 

many ways of making money on a farm and that we ought to have 

maximum freedom for farmers to be able to use their enterprise 

and to meet markets, both at home and abroad, as opposed to having these historical situations going on all the way back to the thirties that have no relevance whatever, except on occasion, vested inVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:36 Mar 30, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\71635.TXT MICHA
35 

terest who really want to keep restrictions because they are hoping 

to hang on to some particular privilege. 

Your story, I think, is extremely important, as you are a practicing farmer now on 4,300 acres and obviously honored by the 

trade. But I am hopeful that your full testimony will be a part not 

only of our record, but likewise of the education of our colleagues 

as we proceed into the Farm Bill. 

I thank you very much, Madam. 

Mr. ABBETT. Thank you. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Thank you very much. Senator Klobuchar, welcome. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman. I would like to start by thanking you for holding this important hearing on organic and specialty crops. We have a number, 

I think people may know, we have major crops. We are sixth in agriculture. We also produce a number of specialty crops. We are first 

in sweet corn and green peas. Perhaps you have heard of the Jolly 

Green Giant. I grew up in the shadow of the big Jolly Green Giant 

and we support rural jobs at processing plants and companies like 

Seneca Foods, located in Glencoe, and Del Monte foods in Sleepy 

Eye, Minnesota. 

I had a question, first of all, of you, Mr. Engelhard, and this is 

about the testimony that you gave about the Pulse Health Initiative and the major challenges you believe pulse crops can address 

and overcome, including obesity and chronic disease. We believe 

living a healthy lifestyle on this Committee is incredibly important 

and in the U.S., as you know, sadly approximately 34 percent of 

adults, 17 percent of children are obese. 

And my question is how you think continued research on the 

health benefits of pulses would help kids to be less obese to lose 

weight, and do you think pulses have a place in school cafeterias 

or in the Farm to School Program, providing healthy foods to school 

cafeterias? 

Mr. ENGELHARD. Absolutely. You know, pulses are so diverse. 

Edible beans are very colorful. Everybody has their own likes, dislikes with edible beans and the key is to find really good ways to 

put those things on the plates of our kids when they are young and 

get them used to them. 

For so long we have grown up in a society of fast prepared foods 

and meat has been seen as a symbol that we are doing well. We 

can go out and—economically that we can go out and buy meat. 

And that is great. We all love beef. We all love our chicken and so 

forth. 

But when we really look at what the best way is to get protein 

into our bodies, pulse crops provide a very good option. And then 

when you look at the economics of using pulses in our schools and 

in our cafeterias, using edible beans in creative new recipes, there 

is just an unlimited opportunity there to enhance the economics. 

And then finally, you know, when we think about how can we 

be environmentally friendly, pulses produce their own nitrogen. I 

alluded to the small water foot print that it takes to grow edible 

beans, peas and lentils and chick peas. And some of those things 

are so opportunistic for our country to make us healthier and also 

to make us more environmentally friendly. 

36 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you. And then I have one last question, Mr. Abbett. The 2008 Farm Bill allowed a voluntary farm 

flexibility program that allowed farmers to produce fruit and vegetables for processing without any punishment. And you mentioned 

that the pilot project with specific acreage limits had a significant 

hassle factor in annual—by the way, I have never used that word. 

It is kind of fun. I will use it again—significant hassle factor in 

sign up and how do you think removing the acreage cap could further encourage the production of fruit and vegetables for processing? 

Mr. ABBETT. Great question. Thank you for asking it. The issue 

came about when I first attempted to sign up in 2009 where I became knowledgeable that in the event that there were more than, 

I think 9,000 acres, asked for in the State of Indiana, there would 

be a lottery that would choose those acres. 

So I was put in a position where I would go—where I needed to 

go to landlords and say I would like to raise fruits and vegetables 

on your land. I would like to pay you a fair rent for that, but I cannot guarantee that is going to happen, and by the way, it is a lottery that is going to decide whether that can happen. And it may 

be I do not know exactly when the lottery occurs and it may be 

April before I can come to you and say, sorry, we did not make the 

lottery and therefore, I cannot put fruits and vegetables on your 

property and I am going to have to move them back onto my farm 

where I have history. 

So that was a huge constraint, or that caused real issues getting—having me have desire to use the pilot program in the first 

years, worrying about whether or not I was actually just going to 

get a bad name in the community for going out and trying to rent 

property that I eventually could not rent because of the lottery system. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Okay, well, very good. Hopefully we can try 

to fix this, so I appreciate it. Thank you. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Thank you very much. Senator Boozman. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you, Madam Chair. I know that the 

risk management tools have come up and I think all of us are committed to working hard to try and reform and improve those for all 

segments of agriculture, the Farm Bill, comes about. 

Mr. Bencal, you expressed the importance of passage of H.R. 872, 

the Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of 2011, prior to October. We 

passed that in this Committee. It was passed in the House. I appreciate you mentioning it. It is so important. Hopefully working 

together we can get the vote in the Senate and actually get that 

thing passed. 

Mr. BENCAL. Thank you, sir. I really appreciate it. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Well, again, thank you so much for bringing 

it up. The only other thing I would say is that the area where I 

live is actually where Walmart’s at and the idea of encouraging 

specialty crops where we can encourage entities like that that work 

with our local producers I think is a very good thing. 

Hopefully we can work together to encourage others to do the 

same thing. If you would like to comment about that. 

37 

Mr. BENCAL. Yeah. In fact Welch’s is vice versa. It is probably 

one of Walmart’s biggest customers and Walmart is one of Welch’s 

largest customers. And as a grape grower through National Grape, 

Walmart, not that they insist, but it is very important to them the 

title of viable agriculture comes up in viable viticulture. We have 

become much more environmentally sound in our farming practices, both from a wildlife aspect and just plain environment aspect 

as far as spray drift, nutrition, containment and putting—you 

know, hitting the target that we are aiming at, whether it be nutrition wise or pesticide wise or otherwise. 

It just gets more and more important. It is funny, because years 

ago when I first started in ’73, we used to go out and spray our 

vineyard at 8:00 Friday afternoon, or Friday evening. The wind 

would calm down and you would go out there and you would spray 

and 14 days, 20 days later, you would go out and spray again. 

Last year, I believe I—and you carried that on throughout the 

summer. Last year I believe I sprayed twice. This year I have 

sprayed twice and scouting the vineyard before I came down here 

the other day. There is no reason to spray right now. 

So we have come a long way in doing exactly that. The registration in New York, I have to be a certified applicator in the State 

of New York. We take an exam to get that certification. We have 

to maintain a certain amount of credits. It is renewed every five 

years and I have to maintain credits. 

We have three to four grower meetings every summer where collectively we all get together. An extension team comes down. We 

have set this whole program up through Cornell. Management 

practices are approached. Discussions are coming up, a lot of networking going on amongst growers. A lot of discussion goes on. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Well, I appreciate that. That really is a great 

story to tell. All of you all work so hard to do the best management 

practices. 

Mr. BENCAL. We do not take it lightly. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Very much so. You love the areas that you are 

growing on and have a great respect and are trying to do the right 

thing. Sometimes we make it very, very tough on you. I do appreciate you all being here and all that you represent. And hopefully 

working together with the new Farm Bill and stuff we can help 

with some things and also push back on really some regulation 

that I think is very heavy handed and just does not do any good 

for anybody. 

So with that, I yield back. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Thank you very much. At this point, we 

will conclude the hearing. Let me just indicate again how important each of you are to American agriculture, as well as the health 

of our country moving forward. When we look at issues of diabetes 

and obesity and all of the other health challenges that we have in 

the country, the role you play in reaching our goals, both for jobs, 

success in rural America, as well as the health of the country, is 

very important. 

So by providing the tools and technical assistance to growers that 

you need to manage risks, developing market opportunities and innovation, we can help to ensure that American consumers in 

schools, families, have access to safe and healthy supply of AmerVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:36 Mar 30, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\71635.TXT MICHA
38 

ican produce and we can continue to create very important jobs for 

our country. 

So thank you again, to each one of you for coming in, for sharing 

your testimony and we look forward to working with you as we 

move forward to write a Farm Bill. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 12:18 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

(39) 

A P P E N D I X 

JULY 28, 2011 

40 


71635.001
41 


71635.002
42 


71635.003
43 


71635.004
44 


71635.005
45 


71635.006
46 


71635.007
47 


71635.008
48 


71635.009
49 


71635.010
50 


71635.011
51 


71635.012
52 


71635.013
53 


71635.014
54 


71635.015
55 


71635.016
56 


71635.017
57 


71635.018
58 


71635.019
59 


71635.020
60 


71635.021
61 


71635.022
62 


71635.023
63 


71635.024
64 


71635.025
65 


71635.026
66 


71635.027
67 


71635.028
68 


71635.029
69 


71635.030
70 


71635.031
71 


71635.032
72 


71635.033
73 


71635.034
74 


71635.035
75 


71635.036
76 


71635.037
77 


71635.038
78 


71635.039
79 


71635.040
80 


71635.041
81 


71635.042
82 


71635.043
83 


71635.044
84 


71635.045
85 


71635.046
86 


71635.047
87 


71635.048
88 


71635.049
89 


71635.050
90 


71635.051
91 


71635.052
92 


71635.053
93 


71635.054
94 


71635.055
95 


71635.056
(97) 

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 

JULY 28, 2011 

98 


71635.057
99 


71635.058
100 


71635.059
101 


71635.060
102 


71635.061
103 


71635.062
104 


71635.063
105 


71635.064
106 


71635.065
107 


71635.066
108 


71635.067
109 


71635.068
110 


71635.069
111 


71635.070
112 


71635.071
113 


71635.072
114 


71635.073
115 


71635.074
116 


71635.075
117 


71635.076
118 


71635.077
119 


71635.078
120 


71635.079
121 


71635.080
122 


71635.081
123 


71635.082
124 


71635.083
125 


71635.084
126 


71635.085
127 


71635.086
128 


71635.087
129 


71635.088
130 


71635.089
131 


71635.090
132 


71635.091
133 


71635.092
134 


71635.093
135 


71635.094
136 


71635.095
137 


71635.096
138 


71635.097
139 


71635.098
140 


71635.099
141 


71635.100
142 


71635.101
143 


71635.102
144 


71635.103
145 


71635.104
146 


71635.105