WRITTEN TESTIMONY Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, I am Dale Petty, an independent agricultural producer from Clovis, New Mexico, where my family and I raise dryland wheat. I appreciate the opportunity to share with you today my thoughts on the future of federal agricultural policy. During the past three months, I have been a part of a farm policy-working group convened by the Rocky Mountain Farmers Union. Many of my comments today reflect the consensus opinion of the active producers participating in that working group. Let me say at the outset that farm policy is not just about commodities. It is not just about farmers. Ultimately, it is about our rural communities, the environment, and the very structure of our economy. We need a policy approach that recognizes and supports the multifunctional role that producers play in supplying the benefits of healthy food, clean water, fresh air, wildlife habitat, and renewable wealth. Second, I want to stress that it is important that the short term modifications made to the 1996 Farm Bill must move us toward a fundamental, comprehensive redirection of farm policy in 2002. Freedom to Farm has not worked. The farm income statistics show that. The farm auction notices reflect that. Our Main Streets reflect that. Enough said. So, what do we do about it? Let's start with price and income policies. Marketing loan programs must be equitable, targeted, countercyclical, and must maximize producer marketing flexibility. Farmers like the planting flexibility of the 1996 Farm Bill, but despise the price volatility fostered by elimination of the safety net. Within the context of this farm bill, we must begin to manage the supply that has hung over the market like an anvil. We can provide a means to manage our supply, and to protect the quality of our soil, all at the same time. We specifically endorse a multi-year land restoration program. This would be a shorter-term program that the traditional CRP. Producers would be allowed to put up to 30 percent of their farm base under a cover crop for a period of 1-3 years. This provides the benefit of lowing the supply of program crops and assuring a more stable supply of production for consumers over the long haul. The diverted acres will also provide valuable wildlife habitat. This program would impact consumer prices by no more than 0.3% Re-establishing the farmer-owned reserve is another step that can help us manage our supply problems. In order to serve as a true “reserve” and not just a stored surplus, however, we must have the tools to effectively lock away our commodities until the market prices rebound to profitable levels. We urge that the farmer-owned reserve facility storage loan program be offered to producers at 0% interest, and that the program pays for storage costs. Producers of livestock must have access to farm support programs as well. A livestock loan deficiency program would provide a valuable safety net for producers of livestock. The ideal of a market-oriented farm policy will remain elusive until such time as we create new marketing opportunities for producers. As one farmer recently said, “We can talk about the fact that farmers are selling into a world market all we want, but in reality, I market to Cargill. Cargill may sell into a world market, but they sure are not sharing the benefits with me." Additional funding for new cooperative development is a first step toward the goal of increased market opportunities. The Rural Cooperative Development Grant Program should be funded at the full level of $20 million/year that was authorized in the Farm Bill, and supported by the USDA Small Farm Commission. A marketing incentive program. in which producers is another important step needed. This program would shift the money that producers would earn from program crops, and would utilize the funds to establish markets for alternative crops. This truly provides producers with incentives for greater planting flexibility. Given the action in the Senate last week, we now have a clearer picture on the potential future of federal crop insurance. The Kerry/Roberts approach addresses many of the concerns we have in the Rocky Mountain region. Specifically, we support inverted premium subsidies to enhance the affordability of higher levels of coverage; modifications to the Actual Production History calculation to adjust for multi-year losses, program expansion for underserved regions, crops and livestock; greater representation on the FCIC board of directors, market related quality loss adjustment mechanisms, and changes to the prevented planting rules. Finally, we feel it is important to recognize that a thoughtful, well-financed farm program will ultimately serve the taxpayers better than a flawed farm policy that requires annual emergency injections of cash. That is why we feel it is important for Congress to increase the baseline spending floor allocated to agricultural programs. If they are designed properly, funded adequately, and administered effectively, we can finally abandon our annual exercise of emergency appropriations. Mr. Chairman, I again appreciate this opportunity to testify before the committee. c:\farm bill testimony March 27, 2000 Aubrey L. Russell Panhandle, Texas 79068 Chief Clerk House Committee on Agriculture 1301 Longworth Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Subject: Testimony for House Agriculture Committee Farm Policy Hearings Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, My name is Aubrey Russell. I am from Panhandle, Texas. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to address some of the concerns facing agricultural producers in our area. I have been involved in farm and ranching activities in Carson and Roberts Counties since 1958. I currently serve as chairman of the McClellan Creek Soil and Water Conservation District and as Director of the Association of Texas Soil and Water Conservation Districts representing the Panhandle and South Plains area of Texas. Soil and Water Conservation Districts (SWCDs) appreciate the support of the Members of Congress and their commitment to agriculture during these trying times. In the last few years, the drought and low prices have made it difficult to survive in agriculture. Many producers would not have survived without the commitment and support of Congress and particularly the house and Senate Agriculture Committees. So I want to express my thanks to each of you. Each farmer and rancher is not only challenged to economically survive, we are also becoming more challenged to deal with environmental issues. As you know, environmental issues vary across the state. Producers in our SWCDs have shared with me some of their concerns. For example, in this area of the State we had a major environmental disaster back in the '30s with epidemic dust storms. Fortunately, we have not had a repeat of those dust storms but it is only because most landowners maintain a constant vigil to control blowing dust. In addition, many of the Farm Bill programs have helped us keep wind erosion and blowing dust to a minimum level. Another environmental challenge has been to conserve as much water as possible to support farming and human life. We have made progress in more efficient irrigation water use. However, we must continue to work together in the agriculture community to try and improve water conservation even more. The issue of water quantity has become a statewide issue due largely to the recent droughts. Texas is faced with planning for enough water for urban expansion and adequate supplies for irrigated agriculture. I bring this issue before the Committee to emphasize the many challenges that agriculture faces. Many areas of Texas need adequate water for both urban expansion and adequate storage during times of drought. Many locations are looking at agriculture as a source of water. Agriculture is being called on to improve irrigation efficiency to reduce water consumption. In addition, targeted brush management on rangeland has demonstrated increased water yield. This has significant offsite benefits to all water users. Undoubtedly, there will be many debates on this issue in the future. Water conservation and the allocation of water supplies will be a critical issue in Texas as we move into the new century. In meeting these many challenges, the Soil and Water Conservation Districts are working with the landowners and appropriate units of government to try to help solve these problems at the local level. Many farmers and ranchers need access to technical support that they trust to assist in solving local resource problems. For years local SWCDs and the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service have served as a firewall between the mandatory regulations and the voluntary approach to conservation. Our conservation partnership works to develop solutions to environmental concerns that will fit most farm and ranching operations and keep the landowner in business. Due to the economic stress of the farmers in our area, it is difficult for them to provide the matching funds needed on conservation projects. The lack of adequate safety nets, lost market value, and unfulfilled trade deals have seriously affected producers financial futures. My suggestion to the Committee is to continue supporting agriculture, but also keep in mind that we need a strong technical staff and conservation program support to meet the government policies on agriculture and the many environmental challenges that are occurring. cc: Robert Buckley, Ex. Director Texas State Soil and Water Conservation Board John Burt, State Conservationist Robert Gruner, Program Specialists Dayton Elam, District I State Board Member |