compared to the 5-yr. avg.; soybeans are down 56%; cotton is down 62%; wheat is down 17%; and the total change in value of our six leading crops is down 34%. The only increases have been in hay (9%) and burley tobacco (3%). We have no choice but to request assistance from government for disaster relief. At the same time we need to develop ways to avoid this position again. The development of a counter-cyclical payment structure is a possible solution. One major setback for producers is the increased production costs that occur outside the control of agriculture. For decades our production efficiency has allowed us to continue to deal with inflation of input items while receiving steady and lower prices for our commodities. But, in today's marketplace farmers suffer. The current high fuel cost is an example. Fuel cost increases from one year ago, for our West Tennessee row-crop farmers have risen 65%. Rising fuel costs affect farmers in many ways. The most obvious is the extra cash spent for diesel fuel, but high fuel prices drive up costs for delivery of other inputs, like fertilizer, and ultimately reduce crop prices as bids are lowered to accommodate transportation costs. Other input costs are driven up as a result of continually increasing government regulations. Again, we were promised regulatory reform in the last Farm Bill debate but that has not been delivered. Each year, America's farmers and ranchers must spend $20 billion to comply with federal regulations. There are numerous related costs to many federal regulations. When federal, state and local money is spent on regulating low-level risks; the money is unavailable for more pressing needs. Regulatory compliance costs are estimated to be equivalent to 44% of the size of all federal spending in 1998. Congress needs to lay down specific guidelines and restraints on the agencies that have the power to adopt rules and regulations, and ultimately administer laws. The Environmental Protection Agency must not be allowed to operate unbridled. The Congressional Budget Office should produce an annual cost/benefit analysis of regulations on the private sector, and all proposed regulations should be measured accordingly. Regulations should be understandable and easy to comply with. I applaud your accomplishments as the Agriculture Committee and your many considerations given to farmers. I encourage you to work toward a satisfactory resolve of the issues I've mentioned. I am willing to assist your efforts toward that goal. Thank you for your attention and the opportunity to share my thoughts. APRIL 10, 2000 CHIEF CLERK C/O HOUSING COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE To the Chief Clerk: Thank-you for holding The Field Hearing to Review Federal Farm Policy at the Agricenter International in Memphis Tennessee on March 17, 2000. As a member of Farm Sanctuary, I attended and listened to the hearing and was able to talk to many farmers about Downed Animals. We hope that you can help in this problem of suffering farm animals and help to pass HR443. If you have any questions or other concerns about these issues please write to Farm Sanctuary, C/O Jenny White; PO Box 150, Watkins Glen, New York. 1489/ There are many people in this great nation that hope to get HR443 passed. Mar. 17, 2000 Johnny Dodson 3098 UnionvilleRd. Halls, TN 38040 901-286-2268 Idodson@usit.net House Committee on Agriculture 1301 Longworth Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Sirs: I would personally like to thank you for your interest and taking your time to have a hearing on our current farm policy. I think those that were chosen to represent the different aspects of Mid-South agriculture did an excellent job in presenting their testimony. But, as always there is so much to say and so little time to say it in. Although, as good as their testimony was, most of the speakers talked about the many problems in agriculture but didn't offer many specific suggestions in how to correct it. I am a farmer from West Tennessee and have a diverse farming operation that includes cattle, cotton, soybeans and corn. I live on and operate land that has been in my family for four generations. And, just to sum up my feelings for the future of farming in short, the fifth generation is fourteen years of age and I have done everything I know to discourage him from wanting to farm. I would like to take this opportunity to offer my thoughts on farm policy that I think would keep my "family farm" a viable one 1. Overhaul the crop insurance program. I pay for insurance on a per acre rate. I should have insurance coverage on a per acre rate instead of a sum of a unit of production. I can not continue to have a 20%, 30%, 40% loss on a given unit before my insurance starts to pay. RMA also needs to take into account the many different rental agreements that we have today. When I purchase insurance my objective is to buy up a level of coverage that will cover my cash expenses if I had a loss. Under a crop share scenario RMA assumes the land owner has as much cash inputs in a crop as I do. That is wrong. In my area under most rental agreements the land lord has very little money tied up in a crop. But with RMA's policies my coverage will be cut by the equivalent equal to the crop share of the rental agreement. For an example, if I need $300 an acre to cover my expenses on owned land an I select a level of coverage that will provide that, on land rented at say 2/3-1/3 share that same level will only provide $200 coverage. Also there should be a rider provision added to the policy just as their is in health insurance. If I have land that is say prone to flooding and is "rated land" the cost of a MPCI policy most of the time prohibits me from buying up enough coverage. But if a rider was placed on that policy for flooding it would allow me to purchase adequate coverage for the other perils covered under MPCI. I feel that crop insurance should be an integral part of our risk management but without proper reform it does not offer adequate risk management. 2. Emergency Aid. There has been a tremendous amount of aid in recent years but for the most part it is not going where it needs to go. An example would be the additional 1999 AMTA payments. There were parts of the country that had the best crop they had ever had. Together with record yields and large LDP payments these areas had record income while other areas had low yields low LDP payments and not enough losses to qualify for insurance payments. A full 1/3 of my gross income in 1999 came from LDP and AMTA but I had the worst year financially since 1980. 3. Trade During the debate of the 1995 farm bill agriculture was told that if we would sign on to the legislation that our government would see to it that foreign markets would be opened to our products. That has not happened. Markets around the globe continue to be closed to the ag sector for a multitude of reasons. I think it has been proven time and time again that trade sanctions only hurt U.S. farmers. Also, other trading partners have used different tools to keep U.S. products out of their markets. American farmers were promised that these trade distorting policies would be dealt with swiftly and for the most part we are where we where 5 years ago. The E.U. will not accept our beef, and they use GMO's as a reason not to import certain corns and soybeans. China has dumped commodities on the market regardless of price and without their acceptance to the WTO and MFN there are no "legal" remedies to stop these trade distorting policies. 4. Loan Rates Loan rates for all commodities should be increased. Loan rates continue to be held below the cost of production. According to land grant university studies, even on some of the best managed farms, loan rates do not offer adequate price protection to cover cost of production. 5. Industry Consolidation I think the Ag. Committee should play a more active roll of over site of industry acquisition and mergers. The Ag. Committee should coordinate with Justice and the FTC to assure that these mega mergers and buy outs do not monopolize any segment of agriculture. We have already encountered problems in regard to agriculture inputs. For example, Monsanto's influence on Delta Pine during the attempted acquisition has left farmers in the northern part of the cotton belt with only one conventional variety (non GMO) of cotton seed to plant for the 2000 crop and it is a variety that I have never seen grown in the field in any production test. Also the candor of the sales representative didn't recommend it for my area. Monsanto's influence during its proposed acquisition led Delta Pine to develop cotton varieties that contained GMO's so that any cotton seed planted would have to pay Monsanto a royalties for "tech fees". Also, the dwindling number of companies that provide ag inputs means less competitions and increased prices in years to come. Cargill's acquisition of Continental Grain has led to a higher basis in my area due to less competition for grain. There are other issues that farm policy makers need to address, such as, adequate funding for research, Oil seeds Food for Aid program, over site of FQPA, EPA's enforcement of TDML and non-point source pollution and many many others. But, I feel that I have touched on those that seem to be most important to the ag community today. I would sincerely like to thank you for the opportunity to offer my thoughts on farm policy and would be pleased to make myself available to any questions in regard to my comments. |