Charles Carter Page 3 Many of the issues important to the beef industry and agriculture have jurisdiction in other committees in Congress. I would like to encourage members of this committee to work with these other committees and seek regulatory relief on the following issues: • ICA encourages Congress to pass legislation that requires federal agencies to prepare taking impact assessments prior to taking action, to provide litigation relief for landowners; and provide for compensation for property that has been taken for a public purpose. ⚫ICA supports the repeal of the Inheritance "Death" Tax. ICA would consider raising the exemption to $5 million dollars per person with the balance taxed at the current capital gains rate. Our figures show almost 98% of our family cattle producers would then be able pass their operation over to the kids. ICA supports the repeal of the Alternative Minimum Tax. ICA supports a reduction in the capital gains taxes. ICA supports allowing 100% deductibility of health insurance premiums for the self-employed. ICA wants strict oversight on EPA concerning the agencies proposed rule on Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL). This rule exceeds the EPA statutory authority and would drive farmers, ranchers and other business into the red by requiring massive investment and major capital intensive interventions, and changes in production practices—all without legal authority and without clear evidence that these actions would improve the environment. Strong oversight and congressional action is required or this issue will end up in a long court battle. Again, thank you for your time and on behalf of our members, we look forward to working with you during this session to enact solutions that restores the word "profit" back into our industry. Eugene A. Coleman Lubbock, TX 79408 February 23, 2000 Chief Clerk C/o House Committee on Agriculture 1301 Longworth Bldg. Washington, DC 20515 Dear Clerk: This is written because of an article in the February 18, 2000 Lubbock Avalanche Journal inviting agricultural producer comments before the House Agriculture Committee. The purpose of this letter is to encourage someone closely associated with the House Agricultural Committee to critically review the current Multi Peril Insurance Program. It is my understanding that the current program is operated by privately owned insurance companies who are guaranteed to make a profit. That guarantee is made by the Federal Government. Therefore, the more insurance they write, the more profit they make. To encourage sales, they encourage loss claims. There have been producers paid for failed cotton, failed milo and failed wheat on the same piece of ground in a single year. I don't know of it personally, but I have heard of producers being paid for three failed crops per year for three years running. Another abuse area is in new crop production. Producers who have never grown corn in an area where corn is not grown, will plant corn; insure it and collect the insurance when it fails. I would prefer that we get a reasonable price for our produced commodities and not have failed crop insurance but Congressman Stenholm assures me that we will very likely have some form of subsidized crop insurance. I believe that it would be less costly to guarantee 75c per pound for all produced cotton than to continue to pay for all the non-produced cotton. My brother and I started farming in 1990 on one-half section of land which I purchased from the Resolution Trust Co. after they had taken it from a failed bank which had taken it from a failed farmer. It had obviously been abused and abandoned. Between the two of us we now own or are paying for over 3000 acres of cropland. About 2000 of those acres are irrigated. The money for the land, farming and farm equipment has come from crops produced with very, very little exception. We have collected hail insurance and we collected failed crop insurance on two dryland farms in 1998 when we sold cotton for less than 50c per pound. We produced 2583 bales of cotton in 1999 and sold every pound of it for less than our father sold his crop for in the 1950's. I know that with all the government subsidies we got paid more per pound than he did, but I also know that he paid $3200 for a tractor with equipment in 1952 and we paid $105,00 for a tractor and $28,000 for a planter in 1999. So while our equipment costs have increased over forty fold our income per pound of cotton has increased about 40 percent and all of increase is from government subsidies. Committee Members - I do not want to testify; but will if it will help. Something must be done about the agriculture producers in America. I have told Congressman Stenholm this and his reply is. “ Tell me what we can do.” I don't know what we can do but I do know that we are not helping the situation by paying large sums of money to people for failing to produce crops. Sincerely, Eugene Coleman American Corn Growers Association P.O. Box 18157⚫ Washington, DC 20036 202-835-0330 Fax: 202-463-0862 THE FAMILY FARM AGRICULTURE RECOVERY AND MAINTENANCE ACT THE FARM ACT OF 2000 A Program to Restore and Maintain Prosperity Developed for general consideration by John M. Dittrich, For more information contact; John Dittrich 402-368-7786 or 402-634-2474 Draft proposal Updated December 22, 1999 Reformatted January 30, 2000 2 THE FAMILY FARM AGRICULTURE RECOVERY AND MAINTENANCE ACT A Program to Restore and Maintain Prosperity on America's Family Farms and Runches SUMMARY OF BILL This bill will address the current economic emergency on America's farms by enacting long-term legislation to raise and stabilize farm prices and income. Income and price support will be based on a widely recognized prosperous period in modern American agriculture, the decade of the 1970's. Support levels will be indexed annually by a formula including inflation affects, and productivity gains. Support levels will more closely approximate those levels provided to farmers by our industrialized trading partners, especially the European Union. Support will be provided through a simplified CCC commodity loan system on wheat, feedgrains, soybeans, oilseeds, cotton, and rice. A livestock support program will be explored based on a target price/deficiency payment system. Support will be targeted to family sized farms. NEED FOR BILL 1. A program is necessary to provide long-term hope to farmers and their lenders. Losses must not only be stopped, but profits must be foreseen to allow repayment of farm losses. Young entrants must be attracted to production agriculture, with nearly two generations already lost. Farmers must have the ability to receive profitable prices in times of adequate supply, not just years of supply shortage. Some stability of income is required by all businesses. • Farm policy that requires extremely tight supplies to achieve profitable farm prices will provide very rare profits to farmers. At the same time, without reserves, consumers are constantly at risk of food shortage. 2. Farming is a fundamentally unique business worldwide, that does not and cannot follow the typical supply and demand economics applicable to most businesses. The farm marketing system is the reverse of most businesses. Hundreds of thousands of farmers Individual farmers cannot predict or control their final annual output due to weather, and cannot individually Total farm output will therefore not drop due to low farm prices, unless very large geographic areas go · Any farm policy that does not recognize these market realities is fundamentally flawed, will incur high 3. A national farm policy and international trade policy is required that recognizes the market · Lose the family farm system of decentralized production, which has proven to be the most successful of • Continue to force farmers and rural residents into a form of second-class citizenship in an otherwise healthy Through agribusiness concentration, increasingly put domestic and export consumers at risk of food |