Page images
PDF
EPUB

land go under concrete and subdivisions. Prime farmland is lost forever. Young people do not feel farming has a future in this country. My own sons did not want to farm. I spent my whole adult life accumulating land and machinery so they would have a good start. Today my farm is the last dirt farm depending on row crops for a living in Russell County. Last December we lost our last dairy farm. Most farms today are part-time farmers that enjoy country life. They don't play golf; don't take extended vacations. Farming is a source of recreation because they have income from other sources. These farmers can quit at any time. We have to change the personality and profitability and the direction that farming has taken in the United States.

SUMMARY

• We cannot compete with cheap labor and huge agricultural subsidies that are given around the world without more support.

We cannot survive without competitive free markets.

• We have to invest in Ag research again (Beltsville, Maryland was the premier research center of the USDA and it is a disgrace today.)

• Conservation responsibility has to be returned to the local level with increased funding.

• Environmental excellence can be accomplished through additional funding through NRCS and not the EPA. The EPA is trying to re-create one of the most productive programs ever designed, PL566-Watershed Program, that is already in place in NRCS. Land treatment, land protection, water quality and water quantity sections are already in place and would be administered by an agency that is respected and accepted by landowners.

Further subsidies should be limited to actual producers of commodities.

• Let me again emphasize the need for irrigation in agriculture.

I hope my future as a farmer does not depend on China, as President Clinton and AMS seem to be dwelling on. How can we sell them any commodity they already have an excess of? This is the same China that every day threatens us about Taiwan and civil rights; the same China that is still buying destructive weapons from Russia to use on us. Surely we can find other countries that would be a better part

ner.

STATEMENT OF TIMOTHY E. MCMILLAN

Thank you for letting me address you today. I am here today when I should be home working towards putting in the spring crop. Farmers, including myself, have been negligent in tending to their business outside the fence rows. So, I deemed it necessary to be here today.

In the past, farmers may have been guilty of "crying wolf" on certain issues. But, just like in the fairy tale, the wolf eventually shows up. I am here today to tell you that the "wolf" is here and will devour our family farms if major changes are not made in our agricultural policy.

I would like to give you a few examples of the small share the farmer receives out of a finished product. According to Dr. Bill Givan, an economist with the University of Georgia, this loaf of bread cost $1.99. The farmer received 0.05 out of the same loaf. This pack of cigarettes costs $2.54. The farmer received 0.04. This box of cereal costs $3.50. The farmer received 0.03. A certain celebrity's picture was on the front of a cereal box for advertising purposes. It is reported that the celebrity received .10 per box of cereal. Farmers could actually give their product to the manufacturers, and it would not change the cost of the final product. On the other hand, the farmers could be paid twice as much for their product, and it still would not change the price of the box of cereal except for the .03. Now, I know that we are not going to force manufacturers to pay twice as much, but the consumer could pay us twice as much through our Federal Government in subsidies, export enhancement programs, and safety nets.

In the midst of a booming U.S. economy, U.S. agriculture has experienced a fullblown depression for the past 4 years. In the 1930's the Agricultural Adjustment Act defined a set of basic commodities and set parity prices for them. These types of programs were essential to the Nation's well being and the triple-A programs were a boon to the U.S. economy. The 1996 farm bill was designed to be a 6-year transition to eliminate the old farm programs. Congress and some farm leaders failed to see how brutal a free market can be. Most major commodity prices are now below production cost levels. Congress has responded with supplemental appropriations to prop up financially strapped farm operators. Farm payments were a record

$22.7 billion in 1999, far above those levels of earlier farm programs. Farm lenders report many loan repayments were made with government payments to farmers. Abraham Lincoln once said, "In all that the people can individually do for themselves, the government ought not interfere." I agree with this statement. When given a chance to compete with other producing nations on an equal basis, U.S. farmers can hold their own and then some. But, as long as Federal monetary policies tend to push up the prices of American commodities in foreign currencies and producers elsewhere are allowed to get away with subsidizing their exports, U.S. agriculture will suffer. I consider myself a realist, and I do not think we can compete with the rest of the world unless we are on a level playing field. At this point, we are playing with a different set of rules that handicaps our competitiveness. Our trade negotiators gave away agriculture in order to promote other industries. Why must we eliminate our import quotas, export enhancement programs, price guarantees, and other programs at American Agriculture's expense? We should first bring all countries to our level and then negotiate from there. With carefully planned promotion and marketing programs, U.S. agriculture can reclaim some lost export markets. We can grab a share of the new business that will unfold as the economies of developing countries improve and provide them with the money needed to buy more agricultural products.

In my area of the country, two programs that have worked well are the tobacco and peanut programs. The tobacco and peanut programs provided stability for its farmers. Farmers could make long term decisions. With the Freedom to Farm Act, farmers can only plan one year at the time, which leads to stress and uncertainty. Both programs need to be kept to assure economic viability in those areas of the country where these commodities are grown. However, both programs have major problems that need to be addressed.

The question is simple: Do the American people and you, as their representatives want to keep family farms healthy and thriving? The options are 1: get us on a level playing field so we can compete on the world market, 2: stay with the old farm programs with subsidies and target prices, or 3: depend on other countries for our food. I feel that agriculture is a national security issue. We must maintain a strong national defense and be willing to maintain our agriculture. It is vital to our national security to be able to feed our own people. An oil embargo would be nothing when compared to a food embargo.

I plead to you; take our case to the American people. You have the forum to do this. This is a national emergency going unnoticed. I pray that this Nation will see the "wolf" before it is too late for America's family farmers. Thank you.

STATEMENT OF ALLEN WHITEHEAD

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I appreciate the opportunity to present my ideas about agriculture. I would like to discuss where we are now and where we should be to help American agriculture stay the best in the world. My ideas include why the American farmer is important to the well being of the consuming public and the security of our nation.

As an American consumer, I am concerned about the use of more and more food from foreign countries. There are several reasons for my concerns. My first concern is that of food safety. The food produced and processed in the United States is the safest in the world. Government inspectors check our food supply from the seed to the table to make sure that it is safe. Food produced in other countries and imported into this country does not necessarily meet the strict EPA and FDA standards imposed on our farmers and food processors. As a consumer, I know that I want to ensure the viability and reliability of food and fiber products grown by American farmers.

American farmers are important to the security of our nation. As a student in college, I had a history professor explain the importance of farmers to a nation. All great civilizations of our world fell because of their loss of morals and their dependence on food from other countries. As we have seen recently in the face of high gasoline prices, dependence on oil from foreign sources can greatly affect our nation. If we continue to lose our farmers to foreign competition, we can easily become dependent on food produced in other countries. Suppose then, that instead of OPEC deciding to curtail production of oil to raise prices, some group of nations decides that the time has come to raise the price of food by cutting production. Then the United States goes from being the low cost food producer of the world to buying food from a nation that is using food to improve its own wealth.

I strongly believe that our Nation has an obligation to help keep American farmers farming and doing so profitably. The 1996 farm bill has not helped me accom

plish the feat of growing food and fiber while consistently making a profit that will compensate me for my time and efforts. GATT and NAFTA have also failed to open foreign markets that were supposed to help make-up for any shortfalls in our domestic agriculture programs by disposing of any large commodity carryover.

The two commodities that interest me right now are cotton and peanuts. They are the commodities that fit into the production capabilities of my farm and area of the country. First, I would like to discuss peanuts. Since the 1996 farm bill, we now receive an inflation-adjusted price for domestic peanuts that has been reduced by over 26 percent. At the same time, the consumer price for peanuts and peanut products has not gone down. More foreign peanuts enter our country. These peanuts do not meet the strict standards imposed on peanuts produced in our country. The safety of imported peanuts is unknown. Peanuts produced in foreign countries do not have to pass the strict grading guidelines as required on U.S. peanuts. For this reason, I would like to see country of origin labeling on peanuts and peanut products. Given the knowledge of where peanuts are grown, I think that consumers will choose American products.

The peanut program, before the 1996 farm bill, included a clause that increased prices paid to a farmer as a farmers' cost of production increased. This provision was necessary to help the farmer keep income in line with the cost of production and therefore keep him in farming. The cost of production clause was a safety net designed to help the American farmer keep up with inflation. When the new price support for peanuts is established, the price should reflect inflation for the entire time that the price has not been adjusted upward. This adjustment should be added to the current price support for peanuts in order to compensate producers for cost increases since the beginning of the 1996 farm bill. The Market Assistance Program for peanuts passed by Congress recently shows the realization that the prices received for peanuts have been too low and need to be raised. If the prices received for peanuts remain flat while our costs continue to climb, more peanuts will be imported and more farmers will look elsewhere for employment.

Peanuts are important to all the people in our area of the country. Peanuts provide jobs for people in the rural areas that are so important to our economy. Peanuts increase the tax base that help the tax digest of small rural counties that need the money to raise the standard of living for many. Also, peanuts are a good source of nutrition and protein for many of our school kids.

Cotton is a crop that is adapted well for the Southeast. Cotton works fairly well for the producers in our area. The crop grows well, when supplied with sufficient water. Cotton also works well with peanuts in our area.

However, in recent years with depressed prices and back to back to back droughts, profits for the crop have vanished. Provisions of cotton's 3-step competitiveness program have worked well to promote profitability when the price of cotton is moderately low. Under the present extremely low prices received for cotton, the program does not go far enough. As a U.S. grower, our costs can only be cut so low. With prices in the low 60's and production costs near 72 cents per pound, it is easy to see why farming cotton has become unprofitable. You might say, why not try other crops. Other crops, such as corn and soybeans, offer less opportunity for profit in our area.

The 1996 farm bill does not go far enough to protect the farmer in times of extremely low prices. I would like to see the payments that are made to farmers be tied directly to acres produced and price. When the price is low, I think that the partnership between government and the farmer becomes critical. When the price is high, farmers need less government support through payments.

The Southeast has been penalized because we began to grow cotton at about the same time that the acre bases were established for cotton. Therefore, the Southeast has fewer base acres. These base acres were used to establish AMTA payments and the emergency relief funds. However, the emergency funds did go a long way toward helping keep bankruptcies from being a reality for even more of the farmers in our area. We appreciate the willingness of Congress to help when an emergency arises. I do believe that a long-term solution to our problem should be forthcoming to ensure the viability of the American farmer. Long-term solutions should address the low price squeeze that has been placed on many producers. Lenders would certainly be more understanding about the value of agriculture when they can see that the Federal Government is willing to step forward and participate when prices are low. Another topic of particular interest is crop insurance. Crop insurance has failed considerably in its objective to help in times of bad weather to protect farmers. The Southeast has had drought conditions for the last several years. Since crop insurance is based on an average of the last several years' crop production, our crop insurance yields have fallen dramatically. Therefore, our protection from these drought years has fallen. I think that any federally declared disaster year's produc

tion should not count against the actual production history of a particular farmer. Deleting that disaster year production would allow the actual production history to more accurately reflect a "normal" year's yield. Premiums should be kept low enough to entice more farmers into the system. As we have seen in the buy downs in recent years, the lower cost insurance would attract more participation. Fraud in the insurance program should be investigated more thoroughly and those caught should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Farmers that are "farming for the insurance;; only should be removed and not allowed to retain crop insurance again.

One last topic of concern is over regulation of the farming industry. When the 1996 farm bill was passed, farmers were promised that over burdensome regulations would be relaxed to improve the profitably of the farmer. One such example of over regulation is wetlands. Wetlands are a good idea at first glance. The idea is to help preserve the waters of the US. The idea has gone too far. Land that I am paying taxes for and also making payments on cannot be used for any purpose because it is wetland. It costs extra to work around that land and extra to make it feasible to irrigate the land that adjoins this wetland. Sometimes, we are talking about an area of two to 3 acres in size. In order to protect that area, thousands of dollars must be spent to work around that plot. In essence, the U.S. government has performed a "taking" of my land without compensation.

Other topics that should be discussed include China, foreign imports, and foreign tariffs, but time does not permit.

Gentlemen, thanks for being here today. Thanks for taking the time to listen. I think that the hearings that you are conducting are the just the beginning. The corrections to our farm policy should come swiftly in order for our farmers to survive.

Testimony of Joe Davis, Jr.
Before the

U.S. House Committee on Agriculture
Field Hearing on Federal Farm Policy
Auburn, Alabama

March 18, 2000
10:00 AM

Chairman Combest, Mr. Stenholm and Members of the Committee,

Thank you for allowing me to testify before you today. I am Joe Davis, Jr. and I own and manage family citrus groves in the South Central area of Florida.

I am a member of several voluntary citrus trade and grower associations, as well as chairman of a group of growers who have come together as one of thirteen members making up Citrus World, Inc., the largest federated cooperative in Florida. You may recognize the brand "Florida's Natural" orange juice, which is one of the more popular products processed and packed by Citrus World, Inc.

I come to you today recognizing that the committee you sit on, nor any committee in the Congress can address all of the challenges that face production agriculture today.

I also realize that all of the issues we are bringing to your attention today have not traditionally been the purview of the farm bill.

However, this committee serves as a sounding board for federal agriculture policy. whether or not that policy involves a program crop or a non-program crop.

The single message that I would leave with you today is to make the non-program crops a part of your thinking as you craft policies affecting agriculture. Where ten years ago the citrus industry would have shunned inclusion in a farm bill, today the problems we face are much larger than we can face on our own, and many have global origins.

The arcas that I would like to focus on this morning are:

1) foreign invasive pests and diseases; 2) concentration of bargaining power of retailers to the detriment of the grower; 3) the need for our government to defend the tariff on Brazilian orange juice coming into Florida; 4) the lack of a federal research and development funding commitment for mechanical harvesting; 5) the orphan status of minor crop uses of pesticides in the registration process; and 6) crop insurance.

Foreign Invasive Pests and Diseases

When a foreign pest or disease enters our borders, a predictable, reliable system should be in place to immediately attack the outbreak. The current system requiring a Secretarial Declaration of Disaster, then a request to the Office of Management and Budget and all of the politics and bureaucracy in between means that a pest infestation

« PreviousContinue »