As our nation's oldest industry, U.S. agriculture continues to face some very difficult changes and challenges. A key centerpiece of that change is the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act, known as the "Farm Bill", which was signed by the President on May 13, 2002. This bill was the product of a massive effort by farm, ranch, agribusiness, and conservation groups across the country.
The Farm Bill is designed to guide American agriculture through 2007 in the areas of commodities, conservation, trade, nutrition, farm credit, rural development, research, forestry, and energy. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has worked to implement the programs and guidelines within these sections to preserve and enhance the industry that produces the most competitive products in the world. Implementation for most provisions of the massive bill are now completed; however, controversial rules are still being shaped. As new regulations are proposed and rules written, I encourage you to contact me and my staff with any suggestions, comments, and information that is important to you.
Idaho Farmers, Ranchers,
& Rural Citizens:
As Congress begins work on a new Farm Bill in 2007,
help me ensure that Idaho's needs and interests are front and center by answering a few brief questions.
My Ag Action Plan
Topics
Although challenging times and extreme weather have been a serious obstacle, Idaho agriculture remains the foundation of the State's economy. For this reason, my priority continues to be advocating for farmers and ranchers, their needs and interests, and our Western values and way of life. My goal is to represent Idaho agriculture and the entire agricultural and rural community to ensure that the needs and concerns of Idaho, the West, and the nation are served through responsible policies. With your input and aid I will be better equipped to provide continued improvement and opportunities in Idaho's communities and vital traditional industries.
While the Farm Bill will continue to serve as a guide for the near term, I know that many issues will require special consideration. The following links provide updates on issues I am working on that are important to Idaho's farmers and ranchers. Please take some time to look over these issues and to contact me with any questions, concerns, or items you feel could be added.
“The Farm Bill strengthens our agricultural economy and economic security.”
The 2002 Farm Bill, also know as the "Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002," was signed into law by President Bush on May 13, 2002. It authorizes total direct (mandatory budget authority) spending of $414 billion over 10 years (even though it is a 6-year bill, the score runs to 10 years), according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). New spending (above baseline) is $73.5 billion over 10 years; $47.8 billion of this is for commodity programs, and $17.1 billion is for conservation. Total direct spending (baseline plus new) for food stamps & other nutrition title programs is $251.9 billion over 10 years, or $6.4 billion above baseline.
The Farm Bill incorporates several compromises that:
The Farm Bill also resolves a number of highly contentious issues, including:
| Individual title funding | |
| Commodities: | $47.8 billion |
| Conservation: | $17.1 billion |
| Trade: | $1.144 billion |
| Rural Development | $1.03 billion |
| Forestry: | $100 million |
| Energy | $405 million |
I successfully fought to include for the first time dry peas, lentils, and chickpeas as a program crop. These commodities important to Idaho were added to the more traditional program crop loan schedule. The loan rates, direct rates, and target prices for these program crops were agreed to as follows:
| Crop | Loan Rates 02-03 / 04-07 |
Direct Payment Rates 02-07 |
Target Prices 02-03 / 04-07 |
| Wheat: | $2.80 / $2.75 | $0.52 | $3.86 / $3.92 |
| Barley: | $1.88 / $1.85 | $0.24 | $2.21 / $2.24 |
| Sugarbeets: | $0.23 | ||
| Dry Peas: | $6.33 / $6.22 | ||
| Lentils: | $11.94 / $11.72 | ||
| Chickpeas: (small) |
$7.56 / $7.43 | ||
| Milk: | $9.90 | $16.94 |
I cosponsored or supported many provisions of the Senate farm bill and succeeded in inserting several legislative initiatives in the bill. However, I know time is of the essence and producers must have secure funding sources to get their crop in the ground. As the USDA progresses in its implementation process, I will be vigilant over those programs related to Idaho.
For more information on the Senate agriculture bill, access the US Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry website.
I believe that rural communities are the backbone of the nation and Idaho. Many parts of rural America have not shared in the economic boom of the last decade that has brought great prosperity to urban America. We need to do more to ensure that rural citizens will have opportunities similar to those enjoyed in urban areas. Doing so does not require new government programs. Instead, we must do a better job of coordinating the many programs available from USDA and other federal agencies that can benefit rural communities.
In the first session of the 107th Congress, I joined with 32 other Senators in introducing S. 1111, the National Rural Development Partnership Act, which sought to codify the National Rural Development Partnership (NRDP) and provide funding authorization for the program. The partnership was originally established under the Bush Administration in 1990, by Executive Order 12720. Although the partnership has existed for over ten years, it has never been formally authorized by Congress. This legislation formally recognizes the existence and operations of the partnership, the National Rural Development Coordinating Committee (NRDCC), and state rural development councils (SRDCs).
The partnership is a nonpartisan interagency working group whose mission is to "contribute to the vitality of the nation by strengthening the ability of all rural Americans to participate in determining their futures." The NRDP and SRDCs do something no other entities do: facilitate collaboration among federal agencies and between federal agencies and state, local, and tribal governments, as well as private and non-profit sectors, to increase coordination of programs and services to rural areas. When successful, these efforts result in more efficient use of limited rural development resources and actually add value to the efforts and dollars of others.
This legislation also defined the role of the federal government in the partnership as being that of a partner, coach, and facilitator. Federal agencies are called upon to designate senior-level officials to participate in the NRDCC and to encourage field staff to participate in SRDCs. Federal agencies are also authorized to enter into cooperative agreements with, and to provide grants and other assistance to, state rural development councils, regardless of the form of legal organization of a state rural development council.
I am glad to report the NRDP Act was included in the 2002 Farm Bill. As agreed to, the NRDP Act will authorize $10 million in spending through 2007 to assist rural communities in economic stimulation, community projects, and other activities.
For Fiscal Years 2004, 2005, and 2006, I successfully worked to secure a direct appropriation of $2 million for the NRDP. As appropriations are considered for the next fiscal year, I will continue to press for increased funding to match the level authorized in the Farm Bill. I believe it is a necessary first step to provide the assistance sorely needed in our rural communities, but by no means the final step.
The reorganization in 2003 of the Idaho Rural Partnership (IRP) has allowed Idaho to take a lead role in reorganizing its rural development resources. With strong leadership in place, the IRP is uniting everyone with rural interests so private and public dollars will reach rural communities in need more effectively and efficiently.
The IRP continues to secure substantial private donations from several sources. However, more work must be done to ensure stable and consistent funding to our state council, and to coordinate national efforts with the USDA in Washington, DC. I will continue to strengthen rural America's voice in Congress, and welcome any comments you may have.
Noxious weeds are a serious concern, particularly to those of us in the West. Noxious weeds affect countless farmers, ranchers, public land managers, and private landowners, and they literally know no boundaries.
Noxious weeds threaten fully two-thirds of all endangered species and are now considered by some experts to be the second most serious threat to bio-diversity. In some areas in the West, spotted knapweed and thistle grows so dense that wildlife are forced to move out of the area to find edible plants. Noxious weeds also increase soil erosion and prevent recreationists from accessing land because it is infested with poisonous plants.
I believe stopping the spread of noxious weeds requires a two-pronged effort. First, we must prevent new noxious weed species from becoming established in the United States. Second, we must stop or slow the spread of those noxious weeds currently present in our country.
I took legislative action to implement my plan in January 2003 when I introduced S.144, the "Noxious Weed Control Act." After much discussion and hard work by those in Idaho and across the country, I am pleased to report that my bill was passed by Congress on October 4, 2004 and signed into law by the President on October 30, 2004 (Public Law 108-412).
Specifically, the law amends the Plant Protection Act to direct the Secretary of Agriculture to establish a grant program to provide financial and technical assistance to state weed management entities to control or eradicate noxious weeds. The legislation sets forth criteria for making grants to weed management entities and funding of weed eradication projects. In addition, the new law directs the Secretary to give special consideration to States with approved weed management entities established by Indian tribes.
The law's purpose is to provide supplemental assistance to States for their noxious weed control and eradication activities on public and private lands, and it authorizes appropriations for these purposes from Fiscal Year 2005 through 2009. My current efforts are now focused on providing federal funding to implement this new authority.
I based S. 144 on the Idaho State Department of Agriculture's (ISDA) "Strategic Plan for Managing Noxious Weeds." The ISDA's plan is a collaborative effort involving private landowners, state and federal land managers, state and local governmental entities, and other interested parties. Over the last several years, I have been able to secure funding through the annual appropriations process to assist the ISDA with continuation of this important program.
Idaho already has a record of working in a collaborative way on noxious weed control and eradication. The enactment of my bill, S. 144, will heighten the progress Idaho has made, and will establish the same formula for success in other states.
Sugar production in Idaho is an important industry to growers, their cooperatives, and the communities in which they operate. In our State, more than 11,000 jobs are related to the sugar industry with an estimated economic impact of $830 million. Roughly 950 farmers produce over five million tons of sugarbeets from 195,000 acres. Sugarbeets are the third-largest crop grown in Idaho after potatoes and grain.
In the 109th Congress, I continue to serve as a co-chair for the Senate Sweetener Caucus. The Caucus is a bipartisan group of members who believe in the importance of domestic cane, beet, and corn sweetener production and who work together in the Senate on legislation affecting the industry.
With the retirement of my long-time fellow co-chair, Senator John Breaux (D-LA), the Caucus has expanded its leadership core to better serve the sugar industry. Now joining me to lead the Caucus are Senator Conrad (D-ND), Senator Mel Martinez (R-FL), and Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA). These new leaders provide the Caucus with a valuable perspective, both geographically and politically, and an important comprehensive approach to sugar policy.
Many issues continue to affect the sensitive sugar industry, not the least of which is trade. The USDA is mandated by Congress to keep the domestic supply and demand for sugar in balance to keep prices stable for producers, but at little to no cost to American taxpayers. However, actions by the Administration to negotiate bilateral and regional free trade agreements have threatened the U.S. sugar industry.
Among these trade agreements, passage of the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) in August 2005 allows for increased imports of foreign sugar to the U.S. market. I worked closely with our U.S. Trade Representative Portman and USDA Secretary Johanns to find common ground to provide safeguards to our sugar industry.
Although headway was made to protect our sugar producers, it did not go far enough. Consequently I opposed the CAFTA because it sets a negative precedent for future negotiations with major sugar-producing countries eager to sell their cheaply-priced sugar to the world's largest market. I believe it is not wise to be picking one industry's profitability over another's potential demise.
I will continue to be heavily engaged in future trade agreements that seek to undermine the sugar program. In the meantime, I will be working closely with the industry to generate ideas that will positively address the challenges facing producers as we approach the 2007 Farm Bill.
I have the privilege of co-chairing the Senate Trade Caucus for Farmers and Ranchers alongside Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND). The purpose of this bi-partisan group is to ensure that the issues of farmers and ranchers regarding trade are heard by our Administration and others in Congress. Although farmers and ranchers have diverse interests and beliefs on trade issues, it is important that all sides be represented. The need for agriculture to speak up on trade is vital and necessary. The Administration has negotiated several free trade agreements (FTA's) with such nations and regions as Bahrain, Morocco, Australia, and the Central American nations. Negotiations are ongoing on future FTA's that will deserve the vigilance of American producers.
The intent of these FTA's is to gain expanded market access through reduction of trade barriers for American goods and services to our foreign trading partners. While I strongly support this goal, I also believe that these agreements must be fair for all parties, especially the agriculture industry. As intended, the FTA's currently under negotiation by the U.S. Trade Representative will significantly impact U.S. agricultural trade and production.
On a larger scale, the U.S. is simultaneously working in the context of the recent "Doha Round" of the World Trade Organization (WTO) trade negotiations. Launched in Doha, Qatar in November 2001, this ongoing trade round seeks to further reduce trade barriers amongst member nations to achieve increased commerce and a more fair trade environment.
In December 2005, WTO members met in Hong Kong to move the Doha Round agenda forward. Although hopes were high that agreements could be reached in the "Three Pillars" of trade -- Market Access, Export Competition, and Domestic Support - few meaningful agreements were reached by the 150 member-nation body.
Although significant progress has been achieved over the last four years to get to this point, many hurdles still face negotiators. Agricultural trade talks continue to be a sticking point as negotiators continue to grapple with establishing acceptable levels in the Three Pillars.
The Doha Round is tentatively scheduled to be completed in December 2006. In the meantime, Congress will begin to discuss and draft ideas for the new 2007 Farm Bill. The WTO negotiations will have a direct impact on the formation of U.S. agricultural policy, and it will be crucial for producers to voice their opinion during this difficult and often complex process.
As Congress considers and debates the merits of the WTO Doha Round and other trade initiatives, I will continue to work with the Administration and my Senate colleagues for free but fair negotiations that provide a competitive environment for U.S. agricultural producers. On June 23, 2006, Senator Conrad and I led a bipartisan effort to express our disappoint to the President on the trend in the agriculture negotiations at the World Trade Organization. Over half of the United States Senate signed the letter (PDF, 703 KB).
In a relatively short time, Idaho's dairy industry has exploded into a national leader in milk production. Currently ranked fourth in the nation in overall production, this industry provides an important boost to rural communities, related agricultural production, and agribusinesses around the state.
The Idaho dairy industry, working in conjunction with state, local, and federal agencies, has also become a leader by voluntarily incorporating environmentally friendly standards in their business practices and incorporating cutting edge technology in both production and processing operations. However, several challenges continue to affect this valuable industry.
I. MILK PROTEIN CONCENTRATE
During the Uruguay Round of World Trade Organization multilateral trade negotiations in 1994, the United States agreed to allow a substantial increase in dairy product imports into this country. New tariff rate quotas were established to allow imports of most dairy products to increase, but tariffs were not placed on all products, including milk protein concentrates (MPCs) and the MPC derivatives known as casein and caseinates. At that time, MPC was rarely used in food manufacturing and casein and caseinates were used primarily for industrial purposes such as adhesives.
Since 1994, these market dynamics made a major shift. A Government Accounting Office report in 2001 found that imports of MPC had surged by 600 percent over the previous six years. Between 1998 and 1999, MPC imports had doubled. Food manufacturers have shifted their use of U.S. dairy-produced non-fat dry milk in their products to using imported MPCs for their food additives.
The displacement of domestically produced non-fat dry milk from MPC importation has significantly contributed to the downward pressure on producer prices in the United States. Additionally, this displacement indirectly costs taxpayers additional dollars as increased quantities of milk powder is purchased by the USDA under the national dairy price support program and stored.
To address this problem, Senator Mark Dayton and I introduced legislation on July 18, 2005 that seeks to close the trade loophole on imports of milk protein concentrate and casein used in the production of food and/or feed.
The bill, S.1417 or the "Milk Import Tariff Equity Act (MITEA) of 2005, creates a cap and tariff schedule on U.S. imports of casein and MPC. The cap would be 55,477 tons for casein and nearly 18,488 tons for MPC. These cap numbers were derived from the common, 5-year, 50 percent "Olympic" average formula used for all commodities. The tariff schedule sets different tariff rates for WTO-member countries and non-WTO member countries. WTO members have lower tariff rates than non-WTO members for these two products.
MPC and casein are currently assessed a $0.0017/lb duty with no quota. The legislation will raise the duty to $0.71/lb for MPC with up to 90 percent protein and to $0.98/lb for MPC with protein levels greater than 90 percent. The quota would be capped at 15,818 tons. The legislation places a quota on food-use casein imports at 54,051 tons or $2.16/kg. The legislation does not set or change new tariff rates for industrial use casein.
Finally, it would give the President authority, as outlined in Article 28 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), to grant new concessions as compensation. Additional authority would rest with the President to modify or continue any general rate of duty or continuing any duty-free, excise treatment, or quantitative limitation as the President determines to be required or appropriate to carry out an agreement. The President could not lower the tariff to a rate that is less than 70 percent of the existing general rate.
At the request of the Senate Finance Committee in July 2003, the International Trade Commission agreed to investigate the scope and impact of the importation of MPC on domestic milk production in the United States. Their findings and full report were reported to the Finance Committee on May 14, 2004. The report's conclusions were varied, but generally indicated that imported MPCs are displacing U.S. non-fat dry milk production and making a significant impact on the U.S. dairy industry.
Senate Finance Committee Chairman Charles Grassley and Ranking Member Max Baucus both agree that action should be taken to address this issue, and are currently calling on dairy producers, manufacturers, and users to work toward a joint compromise that Congress can consider. I will continue to work with the committee, my Senate colleagues and the industry to address this issue as quickly as possible.
II. DAIRY WASTE MANAGEMENT & AIR QUALITY
Another issue continually affecting Idaho's dairy producers involves waste management and odor. Idaho has shown leadership locally and nationally by requiring all dairy producers to possess an environmentally responsible waste management plan. However, problems still persist, and producers must spend extensive time and resources to discover new and effective ways to manage waste. These costs do nothing to increase profitability to the farmer, but they are a necessary responsibility to the environment and those living near a dairy or other animal feeding operation.
The $1.1 billion Idaho dairy industry is fourth in the nation for milk production. Clearly, this industry is crucial to Idaho agriculture and economy. I believe the best approach to sustaining the dairy industry in Idaho is discovering ways to increase and/or maintain environmental health and standards in conjunction with returning profitability to the producer. I have looked at different proposals that would accomplish this goal.
Section 9006 of the Energy Title (Title IX) of the 2002 Farm Bill authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to provide loans, loan guarantees, and grants to farmers, ranchers, and rural small businesses to purchase renewable energy systems, among other options. Under this program, the Secretary is authorized to use $23 million each year from 2003 to 2007 for financial assistance to make improvements or to construct new facilities that may produce energy from agriculture by-products.
I have looked at this and many other options that might provide a means to reach the goal. One such option may be anaerobic manure digester technology that converts animal waste into "biogas." The biogas can provide several benefits including a self-sustainable energy source for on-site facilities, a source of additional energy for local power needs and supplies, and a means to reduce waste management costs and time constraints for dairy farmers. More specifically, anaerobic digester technology used in combination with greenhouse specialty crop production may provide an economically viable method for effective waste management.
To raise the awareness of the need for this technology, I have expressed my views to Secretary Mike Johanns and other USDA officials both verbally and legislatively. I have successfully worked to make anaerobic digester technology eligible for financial assistance under Sec. 9006. Additionally, I have encouraged development and commercialization of agricultural renewable energy technologies that can produce renewable energy from agricultural waste.
I will continue to look for opportunities that could significantly reduce the waste management costs for agriculture producers while also increasing "green" energy production and reducing odor or other negative effects.
III. SUPERFUND & ENVIRONMENTAL LAWSUITS
Recently, I have worked in Congress to keep frivolous environmental lawsuits from wrongfully putting livestock producers out of business. Rather than push changes through the legislative process, radical environmentalists hope activist judges will reinterpret two federal environmental laws to apply to dairy farms and other livestock operations.
If this tactic is successful, the livestock industry would be specifically governed by these two additional laws, commonly referred to by their acronyms "CERCLA" and "EPCRA", on top of the federal Clean Air and Water Acts that already regulate these operations. Further, these same producers are already subject to numerous state and local regulations that require special operating permits and a comprehensive plan to manage animal waste.
Passed in 1980, CERCLA (also known as the "Superfund" act) has been used to regulate and clean up man-made industrial emissions or immediate hazardous sites like weapons dumps, municipal landfills, and mining operations. Complementing CERCLA, EPCRA authority was passed in 1986 establishing requirements for emergency planning and notification to neighbors about storage and release of hazardous and toxic chemicals.
These two statutes administered by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) carry with them strict reporting requirements and heavy fines potentially exceeding $27,500 per violation per day. I should also mention that these laws would allow litigation against emissions violations that occurred any time in the past five years.
It is no secret that livestock operations providing the high-quality meat, egg, and dairy products you and I consume every day have become larger in order to remain profitable in a volatile marketplace. This trend has been at the center of public policy debate and scientific scrutiny. Regulatory agencies including the EPA and the National Academy of Sciences acknowledge that additional data and research are needed before guidelines can be tailored to the uniqueness of animal agriculture operations.
I have proposed legislation in Congress on this issue that would do nothing to weaken environmental regulations to which livestock operations have been, are, and continue to be subjected. My legislative efforts seek to clarify that these statutes do not apply to farmers, and thus prevent judicial overreach. I do not believe that the federal government should be in the business of regulating agriculture through the same standards it uses to regulate environmental conditions at weapons dumps, abandoned mining operations, or other industrial sites.
The focus should not be on suing farm families out of business, but fostering innovative solutions to environmental challenges. Idaho's agricultural community is leading the charge and several projects are being implemented to manage animal waste that will benefit the environment and the farmer's bottom line.
I will continue to work with my colleagues in Congress to find solutions that allow livestock operators the flexibility to be innovative in their approach to waste management by keeping old laws from creating new problems.
The Idaho potato is world-renowned for being the "staple" crop of the state. Idaho fresh and processed potatoes can easily be found both at home and across the world. The impact of the potato industry on the State of Idaho was explicitly defined on March 11, 2002. On that day, Idaho Governor Dirk Kempthorne signed legislation - originating from Idaho students - that action designated the potato as the official State vegetable.
In 2004, Idaho potato farmers produced roughly 132 million hundredweight of produce. This statistic places Idaho at the top of national potato production. Unfortunately, our state has faced several obstacles that have taken a significant toll on our potato industry. Reduced demand for value-added goods, increased frequency of non-tariff barrier obstacles with major trading partners, weak exchange rates, water shortages, and large stocks have all played a role in the current situation facing our farmers. Not long ago, it was announced that for the first time in history, the U.S. has become a net importer of potatoes.
To tackle these tough challenges, I continue to work with industry representatives and a bipartisan group of Members of Congress from across the country to advocate for the potato industry and to develop cooperative approaches to issues that currently exist and may arise in the future. In 2003, the Congressional Potato Caucus to provide a stronger voice for the industry in Congress. Idaho Congressman Mike Simpson and I serve as co-chairs of this important working group.
There are already several items on the Caucus agenda. International food aid and related programs are one way the Caucus plans to reduce surplus stocks while simultaneously providing a needed food source to people in impoverished nations. The Caucus has requested that the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) increase their use of potatoes as a source for food aid around the globe. We've had limited success to date, but will continue to press this issue.
Additionally, I plan to work with my Senate Caucus colleagues to explore several trade issues that continue to slow market access so vital to U.S. producers. Pesticide use, research initiatives and development, and fortification of fresh potatoes are also projects the Caucus will focus on in the coming year.
Mother Nature continues to plague our Idaho fresh and process producers with some of the driest weather seen in years. As a water-intensive crop, potatoes' quality and quantity both suffer from the ongoing climatic conditions that continue to impact the growing area.
In early 2003, Congress successfully passed disaster legislation for specialty crop producers to alleviate the impact of losses due to drought's effect on the 2001 and 2002 crops. Although this made just a small dent in the growing problem, it was a very important response. In response to USDA's implementation of disaster programs, I will continue to work on obtaining fair treatment for quality losses of potato producers due to extreme drought conditions.
The Congressional Potato Caucus is an excellent and vital resource to bring this valuable commodity to the forefront of agricultural policy. As a leader of the Caucus, I look forward to these challenges and always wish to hear from the producers of Idaho's most famous crop.
To complement the Caucus's work for the potato industry, I have not forgotten the importance of a major collective sector of Idaho's agricultural industry: specialty crops. Crops given this label are typically assumed to be those that do not receive federal subsidies for price and production protection.
Although unbeknownst to many, Idaho is the fourth largest producer of specialty crops in the United States. Onions, cherries, apples, table grapes, wine grapes, horticultural crops, and seed production are just some crops that Idaho boasts.
The majority of specialty crop producers do not want federal subsidies, but instead hope to gain equal footing in a rapidly increasing global economy. As a net importer of most varieties of specialty crops, the United States must work to enhance the opportunities for domestic production and export of these essential crops.
In 2003, I joined Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) in introducing S.2902: the "Specialty Crop Competitiveness Act." The stated purpose of the legislation is to ensure an abundant and affordable supply of highly nutritious fruits, vegetables, and other crops for American consumers and international markets by enhancing the competitiveness of domestically grown specialty crops.
S.2902 addressed specialty crop production in the areas of marketing, loans and grants, trade, research, disease response, conservation, and nutrition. Although time ran out in the 108th Congress before the bill could pass, I am now working to reintroduce a revised and strengthened version of the bill in the 109th Congress.
I believe it vital to the agricultural sector of our country's economy that the specialty crop industry receive a fair hand in competing with typically low-priced, low-quality imports. Many of our own government regulations and practices impede the ability of specialty crop producers to flourish.
I plan to re-introduce legislation soon to address these issues, and will discuss the opportunities available to the specialty crop industry as Congress begins to develop the new Farm Bill.
|
||||||
