petition with our domestic production calculates into a guaranteed loss for American farmers and ranchers. This is not a level playing field.

Farmers and ranchers do not need additional loans, they need a means by which to meet the cost of production plus a reasonable profit. Laws are being passed to raise the minimum wage. Where does the farmer and rancher get a cost of living raise or minimum wage? The interests of U.S. farmers and ranchers must be a priority with the powers that be when setting agricultural policy. Policy should be set by someone who understands farming and ranching. Our dependency on food should not be like depending on OPEC for oil. Our food supply is a critical component of our national security system. It has always been and will continue to be an important factor in keeping our Nation independent and secure. Therefore, we must keep our farmers and food system viable. Other countries highly subsidize their farmers because they know the importance of a food supply because they have known hunger. I do not believe the general public realizes the extreme importance of keeping food production in the hands of the family farmer and rancher. Most consumers believe there will always be an abundant supply of food at the grocery store. They do not seem to realize who is responsible for this abundant supply of food. Historically, it has been the family farmer who has supplied our food supply and that must continue. What will happen if our food supply becomes like our oil supply? Crops have to be planted at the correct season, you cannot just increase production at any time.

Farmers and ranchers are doing a good job of protecting and enhancing the environment. They are not abusing the land. If farmers were abusing the land then it would be impossible for farms to continue to operate generation after generation.

In the animal feeding operations and the confined animal feeding operations, there needs to be more funding to help the farmers implement this regulations and/or low interest loan or tax incentives. There needs to be more money appropriated for research that would help eliminate some of the environmental issues cause by the AFO and CAFO.

American farmers are good stewards of the land and should be rewarded, not penalized, for doing a good job. We are producing a safe, abundant and affordable food supply. We must use the best science available in setting policy and not let human emotion dictate policy. There are some individuals who do not understand nature and the production of food, yet they influence policy. Unfortunately their voices are being heard and these unfounded accusations are creating unrealistic and unnecessary regulations. Such is the case with the FQPA. If FQPA is not enforced as Congress intended with studies based on sound science and actual farm use of organophosphates, the farmers of this country could possibly lose valuable tools that are essential to the success of their farming operations. These regulations drive up the cost of production and make it more difficult for farmers to stay in business.

What must be realized by the regulators and the public as well, is that farmers are as concerned with food safety as they are. Our own families are the first to be affected if we do not follow product label instructions when using pesticides. Farmers use only the dos

age allowed and pesticides are used only when necessary. No way are we going to put our families' lives in jeopardy. I urge you as members of the committee to listen to the voices of the true environmentalist, the farmer, when setting policy or regulations.

I want to thank you for giving me the opportunity to express my views on agriculture. I would like to close with a quote from William Jennings Bryan, "Burn down your cities and leave our farms, and your cities will spring up again as if by magic, but destroy our farms and the grass will grow in the streets of every city in the country."

[The prepared statement of Ms. Spivey appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Stuart.

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL J. STUART, FRUIT AND VEGETABLE PRODUCER, ORLANDO, FL

Mr. STUART. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today and I appreciate also you hanging in here with us for the last panel. My father once gave me some very good advice. He said do not stand in the way of the door when it is quitting time. So I will try to be brief, but hit some of the highlights. I have submitted a rather lengthy statement for the record and I will just try to briefly summarize some of the key issues.

The fruit and vegetable industry in this country, as I am sure you know, is a formidable industry. In 1998, the farm gate value of the industry was about $20.7 billion and that represented about 22.3 percent of American agriculture. We receive no AMTA payments, we really have no quotas. We get no emergency relief, but nevertheless, the industry has some very significant challenges and threats in front of it.

We have experienced, as has all of agriculture, in the last 2 or 3 years, extremely low producer prices, many below the cost of production. We have been suffering, particularly since the implementation of NAFTA with increased import competition, particularly from Mexico and Florida. We are on the verge of losing a lot of very valuable production tools, in particular methyl-bromide which is an extremely important soil fumigant and post-harvest fumigant for Florida agriculture and we are also looking at the possibility of the loss of a variety of tools as a result of the implementation of the Food Quality Protection Act.

We have got problems in terms of access to a stable and legal workforce. We have had problems with the consolidation, the rapid consolidation, of a number of retail food institutions around the country. And as Mr. Loop mentioned, we have been invaded by a whole variety of exotic pests, particularly over the last few years. It is interesting to note, as we talk about another farm bill, that back in 1990, you all passed a farm bill that specifically had a fruit and vegetable title, and if I am not mistaken, it was the only farm bill in history that dealt specifically with fruits and vegetables. One of the over-arching statements made in that title is that fruit and vegetable production is an integral part of this Nation's farm policy. You directed the Secretary of Agriculture at that point in time to conduct a study on the overall health of the industry, and ideal

ly, for the Department to develop some regulations on how this industry might better compete in the global and domestic marketplace in the years to come. And do you know, in the 10 years since that study was requested by all of you, the Department has never released it?

Today, some 10 years later, growers in Florida that produce fruits and vegetables are mired in a deepening crisis. Small growers are finding they simply cannot compete in this marketplace, but large growers are having problems as well. Acreage, particularly for vegetables, is falling on a regular basis. And this production is not necessarily moving to other States, it is moving offshore. And as you have heard said many, many times today, once it is gone, it is not going to come back.

So I think it is critically important that we are having this discussion at this point in time, because I think it is extremely important that our industry and all of you work very closely together over the next few months to develop both some short and long term strategies that will help this industry survive and be successful in the future.

In my statement, I listed a variety of different issues that we got into a fair amount of detail on, but in the interest of time here this afternoon, what I would like to do is just hit on about three of them just to get them out on the table. And they are basically three areas that you have not heard a lot about here today.

The first has to do with planting flexibility, and you would not think that would be something particularly the fruit and vegetable industry would be concerned about. But back in the 1996 FAIR Act, as Mr. Combest recalls, we had quite a bit of controversy over planting of fruits and vegetables on contract acreage. And I would urge the committee, as you start work on the successor to the FAIR Act, to maintain that prohibition on the planting of fruits and vegetables on contract acres. It simply is not equitable to require traditional fruit and vegetable producers to have to compete against subsidized growers, not only in the European community where they are subsidized to the tune or $15 billion a year to zero in the United States, but then also to have to compete against subsidized growers for fruits and vegetables here in the United States. The penalties that are contained in the FAIR Act, I believe should be maintained but at the end of the day if you so choose to allow flexibility to extend over to fruits and vegetables, I think you have to be prepared to pay the same payments to fruit and vegetable producers that you pay to others.

The second area I would like to talk about piggy-backs on something Mr. Loop was saying in the area of exotic pests. USDA's plant safeguarding mechanisms and systems have to be improved dramatically. We are literally under siege at this point in time in Florida, and it is a battle unfortunately we are losing. In the last 6 weeks, we have basically lost 50 percent of our Nation's domestic lime industry due to citrus canker and the situation stands to get a heck of a lot worse if we do not get a handle on it here very, very shortly.

Over the last 5 years, the State of Florida, the Federal Government and industry have spent over $250 million to control and eradicate exotic pests, just in Florida alone, and that does not

count the expected $175 million we are going to have to spend on citrus canker eradication just in the next 12 to 18 months to try and get it out of the State. So it is an issue that is extremely important to us.

A couple of things on that before I get off. There is a report that was issued by the National Plant Board looking into APHIS' plant safeguarding mechanisms that I think is absolutely outstanding. It provides over 300 recommendations on how to improve that system and I would encourage all of you to look at it carefully and provide some oversight to USDA in ensuring that those recommendations are fully implemented.

You also have a piece of legislation on front of you called the Plant Protection Act, which I also think would provide the industry with some valuable tools as well as USDA in going after smuggling problems that are rampant in this particular situation, as well as providing them some investigatory tools to try and prevent this kind of thing from happening in the future.

The third area I would just like to touch on before I finish is the area of international trade. I think it is extremely important that we maintain a focus on export market development, but we cannot sacrifice import sensitive commodities for the goal of advancing our exports. Import sensitive commodities have to have a seat at the table, particularly for perishable and seasonal crops. There are safeguards that are absolutely necessary and any future trade agreements that we enter into in this country have to take those import sensitive commodities into account.

Again, my time is up, I want to thank you very much for taking the time to listen to all of us today. I think you have heard it many, many times today, American agriculture is at a crossroads. What we do in this country over the next few months and the next couple of years is going to make the difference as to whether we have a long term agricultural industry in this country. I thank you for your time and support here today.

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

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.

I would just like to say, Ms. Spivey, I host the Texas WIFE group every year when they come to Washington and when I first became acquainted with WIFE, I told them how nice they all looked in their red blouses and dresses and they-I was told that they were wearing red because that was symbolic of the fact that farming was in the red. And I told them that my goal was, before I left Congress, for them to all come to Washington wearing black. And I hope to see you in black soon.

Ms. SPIVEY. We hope you are retiring next year. [Laughter.]
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Berry.

Mr. BERRY. Well, Ms. Spivey, my wife has been a member of your organization for a long time. I think you know that, in fact I think you have been to our home county. But we do appreciate the job that you have done.

Let me ask all three of you the question that I have been charged with keeping account of and that is how do you feel about permanent normal trading relations with China.

Mr. LOOP. I have some concerns, but I do not think we have any choice except to support it at this time.

Ms. SPIVEY. I think we have to support it, but agriculture has to be treated fairly and the rules have to be enforced.

Mr. STUART. In Florida, we are going to be divided. It holds some tremendous potential for the citrus industry and from that standpoint alone, it is worth supporting, the recent agreement was outstanding. But the vegetable industry in the State I have to tell you has not seen a trade agreement in the last 5 years that it has liked, and it is extremely wary about the potential impact of that China agreement. China has the ability to be a tremendous producer of vegetables-it already is for that matter. And could be a world dominator.

Mr. BERRY. Thank you.

It is always tough to be the last ones to present your statements and you all have done an outstanding job and I appreciate what you have done. I will just close with this, a few weeks ago I noticed in the Sunday paper that the soft drink industry in this country took in $58 billion last year. The farm gate-now that was gross. But farmers took in $50 billion net at the farm gate in that same period of time, $22 billion of that came from the United States Government. So we actually took in half as much or less than half as much for all produce from all the farms in this country as what we spent in this country on soda pops. And that has stuck with me and I cannot get it out of my mind, it just does not make any sense. It shows you how out of whack this thing is, but again, we appreciate you all and the effort you went to to be here and to present your statements and the good job you did.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Everett.

Mr. EVERETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I too am a fan of WIFE. When I first ran for Congress, I remember contacting or being contacted immediately by Chris Peele, who was then the president, and we had a long lunch at McDonald's and we-she told me of the great work that they are doing. And we do appreciate your testimony here today.

Ms. SPIVEY. Thank you.

Mr. EVERETT. And if you will, tell Mac and Chris I said hello and tell Mac that I still think he married over his head.

Ms. SPIVEY. They should have been here today. You want me to tell them that you said they should have been here today also? Mr. EVERETT. Absolutely. And make sure that Mac understands that I think he married over his head.

Ms. SPIVEY. We tell him that regularly.

Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Stuart, you are right, your tomato industry just about got destroyed because of trade agreements, basically NAFTA, and there is a lot to be desired there. So I can understand why you stated you will be split on it.

Mr. Loop, I am particularly glad to see you since you run a nursery. I am looking for some Satsuma cold-hardy orange trees.

Mr. LOOP. There is a lot of breeding work going on, but we do not want them to be any cold-hardier than the Florida-Georgia line. [Laughter.]

Mr. EVERETT. Well, that is kind of our problem. Baldwin County, AL, around the turn of the century, they had about 18,000 acres