laws to deal with all the issues I have written about to ensure fairness and equality for independent contractors and contract farming. It's hard to believe that the new millenium has arrived and indentured servitude is still alive and well in the United States skillfully concealed as contract agriculture.

My recommendations are:

1. Work up an Agriculture Code of laws dealing with all the inequities in contract agriculture. This code should be comprehensive and cover all areas of production. It should cover length of contracts, contract disputes, definition of "contract", etc. This code should also grant producers the same protections enjoyed by employees such as minimum wage, wrongful termination and to prohibit any discrimination whatsoever. (See also attached recommendations from National Commission On Small Farms Reports.

2. Amend National Labor Relations Act to allow independent contractors and agriculture workers the right to form a union and collectively bargain. Why does a minimum wage fast-food worker enjoy the right to form a union but producers with hundreds of thousands of dollars invested in feeding the nation and the world do not?

3. If H.R.2830-The Family Farmer Cooperative Amendments Act of 1999 and H.R. 2829-The Poultry Farmer Protection Act of 1999 have not been passed as the next farm bill approaches they should be included as part.

4. Australia recently amended their Trade Practices Act to prohibit unconscionable conduct by a business that is in a dominating position in contracts of less than $1 million dollars. Their laws have long prohibited businesses from acting in an unconscionable manner towards consumers, as do ours. It is time to offer farmers and producers in the United States the same remedy.

5. Finally, no farm bill will be complete nor will it be acceptable without addressing the inequities of contract agriculture.

Thank you for your time in reading my statement.

Respectfully yours,
Alan H. Westfall

We operate a family owned dairy farm in Lincoln County, Tennessee. We have been in the dairy business for 26 years. We milk approximately 150 cows.

WE ARE URGING YOU TO SUPPORT DAIRY COMPACTS

We have seen the dairy industry dwindle steadily due to unstable prices. There are only 9 dairies in this county at present, only a few years ago there was over 100.

We contemplate going out of business as well, unless price stability can be achieved. We have 3 farm hands that would be adversely affected should we find it necessary to quit.

The current price paid to the farmer is less than the cash cost of production.

I have enclosed a fact sheet from the Milk Market Adm. that shows the price we will be paid for milk we sold in March for Federal Order No. 7. As you will note, the price we will receive ($14.21), is less than the cash price of production ($14.44), the total economic cost is ($18.33).

From the government's own figures you can see our dilemma. We are NOT asking for a government handout. We want an opportunity to make an honest living with a market free from the strangle hold of price regulations.

We produce a quality product, necessary to the health of all Americans.

Please give us your support by voting for the Dairy Compact.

Sincerely,

Mabul Hillions. Robert Willions). Aadi titions

Mabel Williams, Robert Williams, Jr., Wade Williams

Testimony of

Mr. Ray Young, Wisner, Louisiana

Before the

House Agriculture Committee, U.S. House of Representatives
Memphis, Tennessee, March 17, 2000

Mr. Chairman and Members of the committee, my name is Ray Young. I have been a cotton farmer for 40 years and a crop consultant for 50 years is Wisner, La... I also serve as the Chairman of the Federal Land Bank Association of Louisiana, a farmer-owned agricultural credit cooperative.

I am here today as both a farmer, consultant, and local lender to share with you a proposal to reform the federal crop insurance program - what I believe should be an essential part of any serious discussion about improving our nation's agriculture safety net. As a farmer, I am vitally interested in ensuring that I have the tools needed to manage the risks inherent in agricultural production today. And as a lender, I depend on crop insurance to be a backstop for our borrowers. In many cases, a lender cannot lend to farmers without adequate crop insurance protection.

In an effort to help develop possible solutions, rather than merely point to the problem, several of my peers and I recently developed a proposal that we believe offers a viable altenative to the current CAT approach to the federal crop insurance program and I would like to take a few minutes today to describe the concept in general terms.

When I go to my lender to establish financing for the year, we sit down and develop a cash flow plan. Under this proposal, an insurance policy covering projected cost of production would be purchased at the time the loan is made. Just like when someone purchases a home or a car- approval of the loan is contingent upon proof of insurance. The insurance coverage would be equivalent to an amount necesary to cover their cost of production. Lenders will be more willing to finance the money required to pay the premium up front, because they know the repayment ability of that borrower is protected in the event of a disaster. We propose insuring 90% of actual cost of production.

These premiums, then would be forwarded to a federal trust fund that would pool them for the purpose of making indemnity payments. In years when claims are low, the pool would grow and earn interest and serve as a reserve for later years or to lower premiums if necessary.

Although the pool would have to be federally subsidized, just as crop insurance premiums are currently subsidized, the effect of this type of concept is very compatible with the cooperative principle that governs my lending institution - but instead of farmers pooling their resources for the purpose of creating lendable equity, farmers would be pooling their resources for the purpose of self-insurance.

Under this proposal, deductibles would vary depending on the farmer's selected coverage, whether whole farm basis or an individual commodities basis and premiums would be

adjusted to reflect the varying production risks in different parts of the country. If sufficient income is not generated to cover the costs of production, either due to lower than expected prices or production losses, an indemnity payment (minus the producer's deductible) is drawn from the pool and paid to the farmer.

The farmer and his banker are both happy because they know his debt can be repaid either (ideally) through higher prices or more production; or by an insurance payment, or by some combination. But the bottom line is that if the farmer experiences unusually low prices or production, he can stay in business to farm another day and not be taken out of business in one year - and that's what an insurance program should be all about.

This type of program doesn't create income for the farmer - he has to get that from the marketplace or some other support program - but it serves as a bare-bones safety net to help keep farmers in business during times of disaster. It also helps eliminate the current disincentive for young and beginning farmers to make a career in production agriculture.

I also believe that this program, if administered correctly, will help reduce the level of abuse that we currently have with federal crop insurance. When an individual buys health insurance, a medical examination if often required and if representations by the policyholder are false, the policy can be denied or later cancelled. When a producer/taxpayer files a return via the Internet or otherwise, they can be audited when it appears they are making excessive claims or if there is unusual activity. Similarly, crop insurance policyholders need to be held accountable when they are not farming in good faith and are just "farming the program" For example, under this program, farmers should be required to retain cost of production receipts and sign a form representing the facts regarding their input costs. If found to be fraudulent, the claim should be reduced or the policy cancelled.

In summary, Mr. Chairman, the current risk management strategies have proven highly ineffective for many producers due to factors beyond their control; and this situation begs for a reliable and predictable safety net that will adequately protect them from these conditions. I believe this "cost of production" insurance concept will provide producers of livestock, crops, and specialty agricultural products across the United States adequate coverage at affordable prices. In addition, if administered correctly federal costs can be reduced, abuses can be curbed and federally subsidized insurance payments would reach their target, the producers.

As your Committee considers making changes to federal policies that help endure a safety net for this country's food and fiber production, I urge you to consider this proposal as an important element of the overall agricultural policy and a viable and preferable alternative to the current risk management tools available to farmers.

Thank you for your attention to this important issue. I would be pleased to respond to any questions.