On the recordJune 19, 2013
While I appreciate the interest of the gentlemen in advancing shellfish fishermen in their districts, I think the premise of their amendment is wrong. While other definitions of specialty crops may have included shellfish, the definition under the Specialty Crops Competitiveness Act was designed specifically for fruit, vegetable, and horticulture producers. The programs under this act were new, so nothing that shellfish were previously eligible for had been taken away by them. Being animals, shellfish have simply not been included in the program specifically designed for plant products. Now, while some minor aspects of a limited number of programs developed under the Specialty Crops Competitiveness Act may be generic enough that the addition of animal species would not be overly problematic, this definition has been used multiple times since 2004 in a variety of plant protection laws; and as has been pointed out to the amendment sponsors, the simple modification of the definition they are seeking would create potentially massive confusion in a variety of critical programs. Therefore, as fond as I am of both authors, and as appreciative as I am of the product that they are attempting to endeavor, I must respectfully request that we oppose the amendment. With that, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.





