20 



the chain link fence deal. In Homestead they are just as important 

 as a fence is to a cattle farmer in the Midwest, yet they were not 

 recognized as being necessary to the industry. 



As of November 5, that has been corrected. Briefly I think that 

 what you have heard today, especially from the committee mem- 

 bers, outlines the problems that are unique to the nursery industry 

 of this country, not only Florida, but this country. 



We need to fine tune the programs to adapt them to the nursery 

 industry. And $9 billion is not peanuts. It is a lot of money. 



I think with the combination of fine tuning the disaster programs 

 and the crop insurance programs can be intertwined to make these 

 programs work much better. 



Thank you for the opportunity of the hearing and expressing our 

 view to you. 



[The prepared statement of Mr. Wells appears at the conclusion 

 of the hearing.] 



Mrs. Thurman. Is there someone here from USDA? 



Mr. WELLS. Am I preaching to the choir? 



Mrs. Thurman. I just wanted to see if somebody was here from 

 USDA. I want to make that notice in the record, it is a kind of side 

 thing here. I didn't mean to interrupt you. 



Mr. Gallant, we are glad to have you here. 



STATEMENT OF RICHARD GALLANT, CHAIRMAN, DADE COUN- 

 TY CHAPTER, DISASTER ASSISTANCE COMMITTEE, FLORIDA 

 NURSERYMEN AND GROWERS ASSOCIATION, INC. 



Mr. Gallant. Thank you, Madam Chairman and members of the 

 subcommittee. 



First of all, I want to express our deepest gratitude for having 

 this hearing, for giving us an opportunity to express our views on 

 the situation as transpired in Homestead, Florida, particularly. I 

 am a foliage nursery grower in Homestead and chairman of the 

 disaster assistance committee. 



The purpose of this hearing, as I understand it, is to measure 

 somehow the effectiveness of the Federal disaster assistance pack- 

 age. We have to decide what is the objective of the disaster pack- 

 age. It should be primarily to provide stability in the industries in- 

 volved in the devastated area. 



In order to do this, we have to develop some criteria for how we 

 measure the effectiveness of the program. 



From our point of view we saw three stages of the assistance as 

 it should be applied to us. I would like to comment on those three 

 stages. The first stage is to get some money into the hands of the 

 producers very quickly. That would be in the form of prepayments 

 basically under the ECP program. 



Ideally this should happen within 4 weeks of the disaster. What 

 happened in our case is that there were some free payments in 

 that timeframe. They were very insignificant compared to the over- 

 all cost. That occurred just as a cleanup in the irrigation repair. 



This situation had a very demoralizing effect to a large extent on 

 the people involved. Second, the indecision of the ASCS when we 

 were cut back to 50 percent funding had a very detrimental effect 

 at a very crucial time in our efforts to rebuild. 



