10. Consider implementation of Farmer Owned Reserve 11. Improve the hearing process - seek testimony from “stand alone" producers who are not officers or directors or board members of major commodity groups or farm organizations 12. Maintain the pay caps on producer payments and initiate tighter controls 13. Pass PNTR for China and lift sanctions against Cuba, Iran, Iraq, etc. 14. Improve administration of LDP - Base LDP payment on producer's actual selling price 1440 E 20th Read Streater, Ill 61364 622-0118 Rensek Roachbuch 7818€ 3000N RO MANVILLE IL L1318. 4134191672-0113 Don Papentang 3139/41 1.600 € Rd Streatur, I'll, 6723768 Roger K. Lucas 31755 N 1250 E Rd. Blacktitone All. 61313 815-672-0889 BLACKSTONE ILL.61313 815-672 4257 Harold Papenburg BOX 15 RR. BLACKSTONE Chairman Combest, distinguished members of the House Agriculture Committee, and my fellow farmers. I thank you for the opportunity to share my thoughts with you today on the current state of agriculture and my vision for our future. First, let me tell you my solutions are not about set-asides, farmers owned reserves, higher loan rates, increased exports, or knocking down barriers and removing sanctions. My solutions embrace a new paradigm for agriculture. A realization that agriculture plays an enormous role in the health and vitality of our rural countryside. The quote from William Jennings Bryan in 1896 is as appropriate today as it was then when he said "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." Let me ask a question of you: What is the difference between the manufactures' of shoes, clothes, automobile tires, electronics and meat, grain, fiber and food? ---- Nothing For the past 50 years we have seen industry leave this country and move to cheap labor, low regulatory, alternatives. Without going into elaborate detail we must examine what our countries producers disadvantages are compared to our competitors: 1. Higher wages (as much 50 times higher, some workers elsewhere work for as little as $20 a week. 2. EPA regulations (as compared to no environmental concerns elsewhere) 3. OSHA oversight (as compared to no worker protection elsewhere) 4. FDA compliance (once again, no comparable agency elsewhere) 5. Much more expensive cost structure. Now, are our disadvantages unnecessary or undesired? NO. We as employers don't want to hire laborers for $20 a week. We don't want environmental standards eliminated. We breathe the same air and drink the same water as all other Americans. We believe OSHA provides some beneficial guidelines for workplace safety. Livestock producers recognize FDA must keep a vigilant watch on drug usage especially where the drug used also has human implications. And lastly, producers realize our cost structure in agriculture is tied to the rest of our economy. We don't wish for cheap production inputs, which would drag, down not only our standard of living but also that of those producing those supplies. Twenty years ago American producers had a monopoly on world agricultural production. We were the only country who could produce more than we consumed. As we begin the 21 century that is no longer the case. South America has enormous potential to quite rapidly displace us as the worlds leading producers of food and fiber. Technology and capitol are portable. Cheap labor, cheap land, nonexistent regulations all beckon outside our borders. The large multinational corporations who control our food supply will take their capital and technology outside this country to procure the necessary ingredients to produce our food, and then import it back into this country to sell to the American consumers. As Dr. William Heffernan said in his study titled Consolidation in the Food and Agriculture System -- The global firms travel the world "sourcing" their products from those countries where they can get the product the cheapest and selling them into the countries that will pay the most. That list of American producers disadvantages, just became ConAgra, Cargill, and Smithfields along with our competitor's list of advantages. Now is that bad? Won't cheaper inputs mean lower food cost for the consumer? Lower cost with the same level of safety and in abundant supplies. We don't know. No one knows. Our best guess is it won't. Tennis shoes once produced in this country, now imported from China, made with child labor, which can cost up to $175 a pair should give us some clues. If, or more accurately when we become dependent on others for our food, a necessity to life, we will have no more control over it than we do today over rising energy cost. It is conceivable American consumers could pay two or three times what they pay now for a food supply of lesser quality with a questionable degree of safety. There are other issues I haven't the time to address in depth. In addition to price, what about quality and availability? The security of being able to feed yourself is among the most cherished luxuries in the world. A luxury we take for granted and are on the verge of selling out to the highest (or lowest) bidder. That brings me to my solution. We must acknowledge the contribution farmers and ranchers make to this country. Both economically and socially. This contribution must be preserved. Throw away all the old ideas about farm programs. They all pertained to a domestic situation. Today we are in a global environment. One in which we have no monopoly position. One in which we could very soon be a secondary supplier. If we value a safe, abundant, reliable source of food, there is only one way to be guaranteed to have access to it. Produce it ourselves. Protect this nations farmer from the predatory practices of the multinationals and preserve the rural heritage in this country. Agriculture policy is about more than grains and livestock. It is about a way of life, and we should not apologize for that. The Europeans call this multifuntionality. They are wise enough to do something to protect their producers from an unlevel playing field. An unlevel playing field, which puts us in the same situation as, those producers of shoes, clothes, automobile tires, and electronics of a different time found themselves. Will we value agriculture, farmers and ranchers, or let agriculture relocate like so many other industries before have? Keith Mudd 28907 Monroe Rd. 391 Monroe City, MO 63456 573-735-2742 kmudd@nemonet.com Testimony to the House Agriculture Committee Joe Rowland 2495 Montrose Turnpike I'm a commercial beekeeper from Upstate New York who has been involved in apiculture for over 20 years. I am on the executive committee of US Beekeepers, and hold the office of Secretary/Treasurer with the Empire State Honey Producers Association. I am also the New York delegate on the National Honey Board Nominations Committee. On 3rd April 2000, I attended the field hearing in Kutztown, PA, and have some brief testimony and comments stemming from this event. The beekeeping industry, as you know, has an economic importance far in excess of the value of the honey that provides most of the income for beekeepers. Many commercially grown crops could not be profitably produced without honeybee pollination, and unmeasured but significant benefits accrue to wildlife and non-commercial agricultural production. As a keystone agricultural industry, US beekeeping merits support from the Congress because food security is an important issue for all Americans. We should not be overly dependent on a foreign food supply. Unfortunately, honey prices to producers are at their lowest (inflation adjusted), levels since 1960 (see Figure 1). We have been besieged by cheap imports dumped into our market, first by China, and more recently by Argentina. The anti-dumping laws provide only a delayed, expensive, partial, and temporary solution to the problem of dumping form countries such as these. Some federal assistance to our industry will allow us to continue to help assure our nation's food security. I suggest that the following steps be considered to stabilize our precarious economic position. 1. Recreate an LDP Program for honey. In my view, the program could be successful at a cost of approximately 20 million dollars. To meet this budget would require a payment limit of $50,000 per producer. If no limit is in place, the government may find itself over- budget and encouraging over-production. I think the goal should be to stabilize as opposed to stimulate. The support price should be derived by using 90% of a 40-year average of inflation adjusted honey prices (see Figure 1). This works out to approximately 78 cents/lb (86.5c x 0.9 = 77.85) for this year. By covering a long period, we can balance highs and lows in commodity prices over time. This is necessary if we are to forge workable, counter cyclical programs that will stabilize yet not over stimulate production of the commodity under consideration (honey in this case). 2. Provide crop insurance for honey producers. Honey should be included in HR 2559 The vagaries of nature cannot be avoided, but crop insurance would help us to weather them. 3. Increase efforts to help beekeepers direct market their crops. I think farmer cooperatives should be encouraged more, although I'm not prepared to say how this should be accomplished. The main profitability zone in the honey industry occurs after the product leaves the producers hands in many cases. Cooperatives are a means for producers to get a piece of the action. 4. Farmers markets are common sales outlets for many beekeepers in the Northeast. It would be helpful if we could accept food coupons again. I accepted them for many years until the rules were changed in what seemed a case of unfair discrimination against honey producers. It is perfectly fine to buy imported honey or any number of twinky type junk food products at a supermarket, yet it is forbidden that a honey producer accepts them at a farmers market for wholesome, locally produced honey. 5. Restructure the National Honey Board (NHB) so that it may promote domestically produced honey and other hive products. In the 13 years since the NHB's, prices have dropped, US production has stagnated, and imports have tripled. This is not a success story! US producers are now paying for what amounts to an import subsidy program and packer profitability plan! The NHB's generic promotion program has been an economic failure for US producers. China trade policy has been in the news recently. As you prepare to vote on this, I would suggest that our deepening economic entanglement with China will not lead them to positive changes. I think the converse is true and that as we become more interconnected, we will be even more loathe to rock the economic boat that we will share. This "free" trade push is more about corporate avarice, cheap labor, and the evasion of environmental regulations than the constructive engagement we are hearing about from our president. China has dumped mushrooms, apple juice, and honey on the US, and they will not be a fair trading partner. I oppose elevating their trade status. Thank you for your consideration. Joe Rowland |