Managers' statement: the organic provisions

From the farm bill conference managers' statement, important wins for the organic industry. However, the farm bill conference doesn't give the organic industry all the mandatory funding it wanted:

The National organic certification cost-share program
The House bill amends section 10606 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act to provide $22,000,000 for the national organic certification cost-share program, to be available until expended. It provides that the federal share may not exceed 75 percent of the cost of certification, and the maximum amount a producer may receive is raised from $500 to $750. (Section 10301)
The Senate amendment amends section 10606 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 6523) to reauthorize the National Organic Certification Cost-Share program, which provides funds for the Secretary to assist producers and handlers of agricultural products in obtaining certification under the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990. Payments to producers or handlers are limited to $750, and the federal share of the certification cost will be no more than 75 percent of the total certification cost incurred. The Senate provision adds language to require the Secretary to submit to Congress, reports that describes the expenditures for each state under the program during the previous fiscal year. It also provides $22,000,000 in mandatory funding. (Section 1823)
The Conference substitute adopts the Senate provision with an amendment to delete the federal share requirements as well as the federal and state recordkeeping requirements, and to require the Secretary to submit to the House and Senate Agriculture Committees a report containing certain program information. (Section 10301)
The Managers encourage the Secretary to keep accurate and current records of requests by and disbursements to States under the program, and require accurate and consistent recordkeeping from each State and entity that receives program payments. The Managers also recognize the importance of distributing cost-share funds to the States in a timely manner, and request that the Secretary distribute such funds at the soonest date practicable following the deadline for submission of funding requests under the program. The Managers are aware that there have been discussions between the Department of Agriculture and the States regarding administrative fees for the program and encourage the Department to review administrative fees to ensure optimal performance in serving the needs of organic producers and handlers.


(18) Organic production and market data
The House bill: (1) amends section 7407 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act to add pricing of organic products as new data to be included in the ongoing collection of data on agriculture production and marketing, (2) provides that the data on organics under this section shall be collected to analyze crop loss risk of organic methods of production, (3) provides $3,000,000 in mandatory funds to be available until expended, and (4) includes a free-standing provision that requires the Secretary of Agriculture to submit to Congress a report regarding the progress made in implementing this amendment. (Section 10302)
The Senate amendment amends section 2104 of the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 6503) by granting the Secretary authority to segregate data as it relates to the organic industry by publishing organic production and marketing information and surveys. The language is intended to remedy the lack of price and yield information for organic producers.
Senate expands upon House language by requiring detailed data collection for: organic production and market data initiatives and surveys; expand, collect, and publish organic census data analysis, fund comprehensive reporting of prices relating to organically-produced agricultural products; conduct analysis relating to organic production, handling, distribution, retail, and trend studies; study and perform periodic updates on the effects of organic standards on consumer behavior; conduct analysis for organic agriculture using the national crop table. The Senate provision provides $5,000,000 in mandatory funding. (Section 1821)
The Conference substitute adopts the Senate provision with an amendment to clarify the data collection, analysis, and survey development requirements for the Secretary, as well as to further specify the contents of the report that the Secretary shall submit to the House and Senate Agriculture Committees. (Section 10302)
The Managers have provided $5,000,000 in mandatory funding in an effort to jump-start organic data collection efforts at the Department of Agriculture, but recognize that remedying the unmet data collection needs of the organic sector will require further investment, and therefore, have provided an additional authorization of appropriations of $25,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2008 through 2012 to carry out the program. The Managers intend that $3.5 million of the funding provided for this section be allocated to the Agricultural Market Service to collect and distribute comprehensive reporting of prices relating to organically produced agricultural products. The Managers also note the critical importance of collecting data related to crop loss risk, and farm-gate prices, in order to determine appropriate products and premiums for crop insurance policies offered to organic producers. The Managers further intend that $1.5 million of the funding provided for this section be used by the Economic Research Service and National Agricultural Statistics Service to carry out the specified requirements of the initiative that are appropriate to each agency.


(19) Organic conversion, technical and educational assistance
The House bill authorizes $50,000,000 over five years to provide technical assistance and cost-sharing grants to farmers trying to transition to organic farming. (Section 10303) The Senate amendment contains a comparable provision in the conservation title (EQIP).
The Conference substitute deletes the House provision. Language addressing the goal of providing technical assistance to farmers trying to transition to organic farming appears in section 2501 of the conservation title. (20) Exemption of certified organic products from assessments The Senate amendment amends section 501(e) of the Federal Agriculture
Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C. 7401 (e)) to allow farmers who have some or part of their farm certified organic to receive the exemption. Only producers that are USDA organically certified may receive the exemption for that portion of land they produce organically. (Section 1822) The House bill contains no comparable provision.
The Conference substitute deletes the Senate provision.

(21) National organic program
The Senate amendment amends section 2123 of the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 6522) to provide increased authorized incremental funding levels for the National Organic Program to ensure proper compliance and oversight of the National Organic Program. It also authorizes $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2008; $6,500,000 for fiscal year 2009; $8,000,000 for fiscal year 2010; $9,500,000 for fiscal year 2011; and $11,000,000 for fiscal year 2012. (Section 1824)
The House bill contains no comparable provision.
The Conference substitute adopts the Senate provision with an amendment to provide such additional sums as are necessary to carry out the program. (Section 10303) The National Organic Program (NOP) is the first line of defense in assuring consumers that organic products certified under the program consistently meet the program's standards. The Managers are aware of concerns raised by numerous organic agriculture interests concerning the level of resources devoted to the NOP. While the program's funding level has increased over time, the Managers view the current level of funding as inadequate to permit the NOP to roperly address the world-wide scope of accreditation oversight and certifier training. The Managers strongly encourage the Secretary to prepare NOP budget requests at least equal to the appropriations levels authorized in this Act.

Managers' statement: pest and disease program

From the farm bill conference legislation, the managers' statement on the pest and disease program in the horticultural title:


(15) Pest and disease program
The House bill establishes a new program to conduct early pest detection and surveillance activities in coordination with state departments of agriculture, to prioritize and create action plans to address pest and disease threats to specialty crops, and to create an audit-based certification approach to protect against the spread of plant pests. It provides mandatory funding in the amount of:
(1) $10,000,000 in FY 2008;
(2) $25,000,000 in FY 2009;
(3) $40,000,000 in FY 2010;
- 244 -
(4) $55,000,000 in FY 2011; and
(5) $70,000,000 in FY 2012. (Section 10201)
The Senate amendment is the same as the House, except for technical differences
and provides mandatory funds in the amounts of:
(1) $10,000,000 for FY 2008;
(2) $25,000,000 for FY 2009;
(3) $40,000,000 for FY 2010;
(4) $50,000,000 for FY 2011;
(5) $64,000,000 for FY 2012. (Section 12101(f))
The Conference substitute adopts the Senate provision with an amendment to: describe the application procedure for the program; prohibit the Department of Agriculture from considering the availability of nonfederal funds in determining whether to enter into a cooperative agreement with a State department of agriculture; direct the
Secretary to consider various risk factors when considering an application for a cooperative agreement; express Congressional disapproval of a cost-sharing rule for animal and health emergency programs and; specify mandatory funding in the amounts of:
(1) $12,000,000 for fiscal year 2009;
(2) $45,000,000 for fiscal year 2010;
(3) $50,000,000 for fiscal year 2011; and
(4) $50,000,000 for fiscal year 2012. (Section 10201)
The Managers believe that the nursery plant pest risk management systems established under this section will provide the nursery industry with assistance and flexibility in developing programs that meet its needs to determine and manage plant pest and disease risks
The Managers note that the U.S. Department of Agriculture has taken specific steps to promote new methods of inspection and regulation based on new approaches to nursery pest risk management, sometimes referred to as the “systems approach.” These steps include a technical agreement under the auspices of the North American Plant Protection Organization (Regional Standards for Phytosanitary Measures Number 24), and the development of the U.S. Nursery Certification Program, a limited test-pilot program developed by Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Plant Protection and Quarantine to promote U.S. nursery shipments to Canada.
The Managers are aware of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s efforts to promote the systems approach for the nursery industry. The development of effective systems of pest risk management and the industry adoption of such systems will be hastened and made more effective through an initiative based on collaboration among key agencies, Departmental personnel, industry organizations, and research institutions. To implement the nursery plant pest risk management systems under this section, U.S. Department of Agriculture policies and regulations must have a sound foundation in research and experience through pilot programs of nursery pant pest risk management systems. In addition, there must be collaboration among industry and state and federal regulators to improve programs of inspection, certification and regulation using such systems. The Managers recognize that systems of pest risk management developed by the nursery industry must satisfy prevailing regulatory requirements if they are to be useful and effective. The Managers encourage the U.S. Department of Agriculture to provide guidance and technical assistance to the nursery industry, and to promote and coordinate related programs of research in the implementation of nursery plant pest risk management systems under this section.

Managers' statement: evaluation of USDA commodity purchases

From page 244 of the managers' statement of the conference farm bill, the provision for evaluation of USDA commodity purchases:


(8) Independent evaluation of Department of Agriculture commodity purchase process The House bill requires an independent evaluation of the commodity purchasing processes and the importance of increasing purchases of specialty crops. (Section 10104) The Senate amendment contains no comparable provision. The Conference substitute adopts the House provision with an amendment to require the Secretary to arrange to have performed an independent evaluation of the purchasing processes used by the Department of Agriculture to implement the
requirement that funds available under section 32 of the Act of August 24, 1935 be principally devoted to perishable agricultural commodities. (Section 10101)

Farm bill conference: the asparagus provision

From the managers' statement of the farm bill conference report on the provisions for market loss assistance for producers of fresh and processed asparagus. Sen. Debbie Stabenow helped deliver this provision, despite some pushback. From the managers' statement:


30) Market loss assistance for asparagus producers
The Senate amendment establishes a program to pay those producers currently growing asparagus for revenue losses during the 2004-2007 crop years due to imports. The language provides $15,000,000 in mandatory funding ($7,500,000 for producers of fresh asparagus and $7,500,000 for producers of processed or frozen asparagus). (Section 1852)
The House bill contains no comparable provision.
The Conference substitute adopts the Senate provision. (Section 10404)

More farm bill conference report: Managers' statement on export permissions

From the managers statement on making export access a priority. Not quite as vigorous as the House bill, but at least putting in some accountability:

(31) Regulation of exports of plants, plant products, biological control organisms, and
noxious weeds
The House bill amends the Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000 to require the Secretary to coordinate fruit and vegetable market analyses with the private sector and Foreign Agricultural Service. Further requires the Secretary to list on an Internet website the status of export petitions, an explanation of associated sanitary or phytosanitary issues, and information on the import requirements of foreign countries for fruits and vegetables. (Section 11307)
The Senate amendment contains no comparable provision.
The Conference substitute adopts the House provision with an amendment to strike the original language and insert a provision in the Technical Assistance for Specialty Crops program requiring the Secretary to submit an annual report on sanitary and phytosanitary trade barriers. (Section 3203)

Managers statement - Specialty crop block grants

Escalating money for specialty crop block grants; From page 242 of the managers statement:

(5) Specialty crop block grants
The House bill amends section 101 of the Specialty Crops Competitiveness Act
by continuing the Specialty Crop Block Grant Program through 2012, and increasing the
mandatory levels of funding to:
$60,000,000 in FY’08
$65,000,000 in FY’09
$70,000,000 in FY’10
$75,000,000 in FY’11
$95,000,000 in FY’12.
The House provision changes the definition of “specialty crop” under the Specialty Crops Competitiveness Act of 2004 to include “horticulture,” and the definition of “State” to include Guam, American Samoa, the U.S. Virgin Islands and the Northern Mariana Islands. (Section 10102) The Senate amendment is the same as the House bill, except funding is discontinued after FY’11. The Senate definitions are the same as in the House bill, but also includes “turfgrass sod” and “herbal crops” in the definition of “specialty crop”. The Senate amendment modifies section 101(e) to require that states, to the maximum extent practicable and appropriate, develop plans that take into consideration the views of beginning and socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers who produce specialty crops. It also changes the minimum grant amount from $100,000 to one-half of one percent of the overall funding allocated to the program in a given fiscal year. (Section 1841) The Conference substitute adopts the House provision with amendments to specify that any funds made available for a fiscal year under the program that are not expended by certain date, to be determined by the Secretary, will be reallocated to other States; change the minimum grant amount to $100,000 or one-third of one percent of the overall funding allocated to the program in a given fiscal year (whichever is higher);provide mandatory levels of funding in the amounts of:
$10 million for fiscal year 2008; $49 million for fiscal year 2009; and $55 million for each of fiscal years 2010 through 2012. (Section 10109) The Managers expect that the Secretary will encourage each state making applications for funding under the Specialty Crop Block Grant Program to provide a written plan detailing the affirmative steps it will take to perform outreach to specialty crop producers in the development of the State’s overall grant plan, including outreach to socially disadvantaged and beginning farmers of specialty crops. The Managers also note that herbal crops fall within the statutory definition of eligible specialty crops under the Specialty Crop Block Grant Program, and direct the Agricultural Marketing Service to include a comprehensive list of specific categories of eligible specialty crops in all relevant promotional materials distributed in connection to the program. The Managers expect the Secretary to continue to consider the cultivation of turfgrass sod as horticulture, and therefore included as part of the definition of specialty crop under the Specialty Crop Competitiveness Act of 2004, and as a specialty crop for any other purposes in this or any other Act. The Managers urge the Secretary to encourage state departments of agriculture to develop their grant plans through a competitive process in order to ensure maximum public input and benefit. The Managers expect the Secretary to ensure that States conduct extensive outreach to interested parties through a transparent process of receiving and considering public comment so that grant applications are developed with proven and justified public support, particularly when developing applications for multistate projects. Further, the Managers expect the Secretary to carefully review requests that extend existing projects to ensure that support remains across the broad array of public-private partnerships unique to the structure of the specialty crop industry. The Managers note that since 2006 many states have used specialty crop block grant funding for marketing programs, some of which promote state grown products. The Managers expect the Secretary to carefully monitor the use of funds under grant awards to ensure that funds are promoting specialty crops as defined under the Specialty Crop Competitiveness Act of 2004 and are not being used in generically cross-marketing other commodities which fall under state marketing programs but are outside the scope of the Act’s definition. The Managers recognize the ability of States to submit multi-state projects under current program regulations. The Managers also recognize the growing need for solutions to problems that cross state boundaries and may therefore be addressed more effectively by multi-state projects. These problems include addressing good agricultural practices, research on crop productivity or quality, enhancing access to federal nutrition programs, pest and disease management, or commodity-specific projects addressing common issues in multi-state regions. The Managers therefore request that the Secretary encourage state departments of agriculture to submit grant plans that include multi-state and regional project proposals. The Managers also request that the Secretary give strong consideration to multi-state projects when reallocating unobligated block grant funding.

Statement of managers - Purchases of locally produced foods

From page 106 of the statement of managers:

(54) Purchases of Locally Produced Foods
The House bill amends section 9(j) of the NSLA by authorizing the Secretary to: (1) encourage institutions that receive funds under the NSLA and the Child Nutrition Act (CNA) to purchase, to the maximum extent practicable and appropriate, locally-produced foods; (2) advise institutions about the policy related to purchasing locally-produced foods and post information related to this policy on the website maintained by the Secretary; and (3) allow institutions receiving funds under the NSLA and the CNA, including the DoD Fruit and Vegetable Program, to use geographic preference in their procurement of locally-produced foods. (Section 4304) The Senate amendment is the same as the House bill, except that Senate amendment pertains to locally produced fruits and vegetables. (Section 4902)
The Conference substitute adopts the House provision with an amendment to specify that the Department of Agriculture is required to allow institutions to use a geographic preference for the procurement of unprocessed, locally grown and raised agricultural products. (Section 4302)
The Managers do not intend that the Food and Nutrition Service interpret the term “unprocessed” literally, but rather intend that it be logically implemented. In specifying the term “unprocessed,” the Managers’ use of the term intends to preclude the use of geographic preference for agricultural products that have significant value added components. The Managers do not intend to preclude de minimis handling and preparation such as may be necessary to present an agricultural product to a school food authority in a useable form, such as washing vegetables, bagging greens, butchering livestock and poultry, pasteurizing milk, and putting eggs in a carton.

Statement of managers - Planting flexibility

The conference farm bill has a fairly large allowance for planting f/v's on program crop ground, so specialty crop growers may be facing some unknowns with this provision. From the House Web site, the farm bill conference statement of managers from the commodity title on planting flexibility:




(8) Planting Flexibility
The House bill is the same as current law, but it includes peanuts and establishes a pilot Farm Flex project in Indiana for the 2008-2012 crop years, under which tomatoes for processing may be planted on up to 10,000 base acres. (Section 1106) The Senate amendment is the same as current law, except provides an exception for mung beans and pulse crops and provides a pilot flexibility project in Indiana for the 2008 and 2009 crop years. (Section 1106) The Conference substitute provides that mung beans and pulse crops can be planted on base acres, and provides a pilot project to allow the production of specified fruits or vegetables for processing for the 2009-2012 crop years on up to 9,000 base acre in the State of Illinois; 9,000 base acres in the State of Indiana; 1,000 base acres in the State of Iowa; 9,000 base acres in the State of Michigan; 34,000 base acres in the State of Minnesota; 4,000 base acres in the State of Ohio; and 9,000 base acres in the State of Wisconsin; that base acres will be protected; and that the Secretary will evaluate the effects of the pilot project on the supply and demand of fresh fruits and vegetables and fruits and vegetables for processing. The Conference substitute adopts the Senate structure for the peanut program. (Sections 1107 and 1306) The Managers expect the Secretary to establish a process to ensure that the quantity of fruits or vegetables delivered for processing under the pilot project does not exceed the quantity reflected in the original contract between the producer and the processor. The Managers further expect the Secretary to seek evidence that the amount of fruits or vegetables planted for processing under this pilot project is delivered to the processing facility or in the case of crop loss is determined by the Secretary to have been destroyed. In evaluating the effects of the program on the supply of and price of fresh fruits and vegetables and fruits and vegetables for processing, the Managers encourage the Secretary to examine the impact of the program on bonus buys under the authority of Section 46 of the Agricultural Act of 1949 and surplus removal under the authority of Section 32 of the Act of August 24, 1935. The Managers recognize the importance of assessing the impact of the expansion of the planting flexibility pilot program upon specialty crop producers. For greater efficiency, the Managers expect the Secretary to include the information and evaluations derived from Section 1101(d)(3) and Section 1302(d)(3) into the report required under this Section prior to its submission to the Committee on Agriculture of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry of the Senate.