backbone of our agricultural system, are treated fairly in the farm bill, and that their well-being is our paramount concern. And the hearing today for us will be an important opportunity to hear directly from you who are affected by this legislation and we appreciate your participation and attendance in helping us to do our job. I know we have a number of witnesses here today so I will conclude my opening comments by again expressing thanks to the chairman for coming to our State and I look forward to hearing the statements from all of the witnesses this afternoon.

Mr. GLICKMAN. Thank you, Jim. I might mention also to the audience that Jim Jontz has been on the Agriculture Committee about 3 years now, was instrumental in substantially being the moving force behind last year's disaster relief bill and, in addition, this year we passed a bill of his on the House floor which will open the door to permit farmers to prove their yield every year rather than have to accept historic program yields which may not reflect at all what the current state of that farmer's production is. So you talk about a tenacious dogged member for agriculture, Jim Jontz is certainly in that category.

Our first panel, I think we have Mr. Greg Scher with the Agricultural Advisory Committee for Jill Long. We have Mr. John Caravetta, Allen County extension agent and Ms. Jackie Haffner, a member of the board, Citizen's Action Coalition. So we would ask you all to come up here and we appreciate your coming.

Let me make the following comments to our witnesses. Your entire statement will appear in the record if you summarize. You may read the statement if you want, but we prefer you to summarize. It is just a way to try to move the process along a little faster. We will begin with Mr. Scher, then Mr. Caravetta, and then Ms. Haffner.

STATEMENT OF GREGORY A. SCHER, SPOKESMAN, AGRICULTURAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE, FOURTH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT OF INDIANA

Mr. SCHER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For the record, according to the agenda here they have me listed as living in Columbia City and unless I moved, I am from Huntingdon County.

Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to share with you a number of issues that are of concern to the farmers of northeast Indiana. I am appearing here on behalf of the Agricultural Advisory Committee for the Fourth Congressional District of Indiana. The views I am presenting represent a collection of concerns, not a consensus of opinions. Heaven knows when a group of farmers sit down around a coffee pot, they can all identify the problem, but there are as many solutions as there are cups on the table.

The chairman of the committee is Fred Bailey and Tom Western and we have come up with some ideas which we would like to present here and one of the key words is flexibility and that is on the minds of the members of this advisory committee. We would like flexibility of crop production and Government programs if research can prove that by using crop rotation in these programs, there will be less soil erosion, decreased chemical usage, less

chance of chemical run-off, and no increased cost to the Government and no major negative economic shift in the agricultural economy.

What we are asking for is, more research for cutting the cost of production rather than increasing production.

We support increased fundings of universities and land grant colleges so they can be less dependent on agribusiness donations and their influence and more research programs aimed at environmental concerns.

We ask that bushels or pounds be used in Government programs rather than acreage allotments.

The farmers are tired of help from the Government in the form of price support hand-outs and need help in developing new uses and new markets for their products.

Export enhancement should be continued. As farmers cut production to stimulate the market, foreign countries increase their production and any market price benefits that are realized are short lived. We need a fair price for our products but that price cannot be at the expense of taking U.S. land out of production.

All Government programs should be streamlined and simplified in their operation and implementation. In the past few years, farmers have had to learn a foreign language called bureaucrat rap in order to do business at today's marketplace. Farm programs should be written for those that walk the fields, not the halls of the skyscrapers in the big cities.

We ask that you schedule all Government payments so producers can rely on when payments will be made.

We would like to improve grain quality standards on a national scope before marketing. Farmers should be rewarded for producing grains above a set standard not docked for grain that falls below a "floating" standard.

Some farmers want to discourage crop insurance and disaster payments.

Öthers want to have no mandatory Government programs.

We would like to idle all federally owned land. Government owned ground should not be in production. Farmers should not have to compete with the U.S. Government.

We discourage foreign investments in American agriculture and if possible, prohibit foreign-owned land from Government subsidy programs.

And last, prohibit creditors from inflicting further losses on farmers facing bankruptcy or foreclosure by making creditors liable for additional losses caused by their actions. An example would be refusing to loan a farmer additional money to buy fuel to dry his grain and forcing him to sell it wet at a much reduced price even though he had the grain dryers sitting idle on his farm, or selling livestock before it has reached a marketable weight because the creditor refused to sell additional feed. We are asking for a review of financial procedures where Federal money is at stake, which would include banks with FDIC guarantees.

Ladies and gentlemen, as you can see, our list is long and sometimes contradictory. The bottom line is the reason we are here today is to tell you that we want a helping hand, not a hand out. We are not interested in working for the Government, we just

want to farm successfully so our kids can continue to farm tomor

[The prepared statement of Mr. Scher appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]

Mr. GLICKMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Scher.

Mr. Caravetta.

STATEMENT OF JOHN CARAVETTA, EXTENSION AGENT, AGRICULTURE, PURDUE COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE Mr. CARAVETTA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to share with you some concerns extension has in northeast Indiana. The Cooperative Extension Service has outlined several national initiatives which relate to agriculture, and will be impacted by the 1990 farm bill.

First among these initiatives addresses competitiveness and profitability in agriculture. Future profitability will depend not on increasing production levels, but maintaining competitiveness in a global economy. In northeast Indiana we see a need for the following:

Improved economic efficiency.

Development, application, and transfer of technology.

Balanced health, nutrition, and environmental concerns with profitability goals.

Development of long-term agricultural policy that considers national needs and global realities.

The 1990 farm bill needs to provide flexibility for alternative agricultural opportunities-our second initiative. On many farms, current agricultural practices related to traditional crop and livestock products cannot sustain both profitability and protection of the environment. In northeast Indiana, extension is concerned with:

Maintaining profitability while protecting the environment.

Evaluation of new enterprises as a means of diversification, and the exploration of nonfarm income sources.

The quality of our water-especially its impact on our health and well-being-is of great concern. Some of the concern centers on the impact agricultural chemicals, rural waste systems, and livestock enterprises have on water quality. Critical issues which relate to the water quality initiative include the following:

The protection of our ground water and the impact of agriculture on the water supply.

And the conservation and wise use of our water resources.

Revitalization of rural America is identified as a fourth initiative. Rural America is responsible for food and fiber production as well as stewardship of 90 percent of our land and water resources. The diminishing economic competitiveness of rural areas, diversification of local economies, and dependence on too few income sources are all critical issues in northeastern Indiana and will be impacted by the 1990 farm bill due to the large agricultural support base these economies share.

Youth in primarily agricultural communities are especially at risk from changes in the farm sector due to fewer off-farm income opportunities.

As the 1990 farm bill comes to fruition, we see a need for greater program flexibility to aid: one, aid in the establishment of integrated pest management systems to reduce the need for production inputs; two, allowances for alternative crop enterprises in order to diversify production systems; and finally, increased attention to environmental concerns while maintaining profitability.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Caravetta appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]

Mr. GLICKMAN. Thank you very much. Mrs. Haffner, it is a pleasure to have you here as well.

STATEMENT OF JACQUELINE S. HAFFNER, MEMBER OF THE BOARD, INDIANA RURAL ORGANIZING PROJECT, CITIZENS ACTION COALITION

Mrs. HAFFNER. Thank you Representative Long and members of the committee. My name is Jackie Haffner. My husband Dick and I raise corn, soybeans and have a swine operation near Portland, Indiana.

I appreciate the opportunity to be here today. I am a board member of the Indiana Rural Organizing Project, a farm program of Citizens Action Coalition. I would like to take this opportunity to present a summary of our assessment to the current situation and the effects of the 1985 Food Security Act and offer some thoughts on the 1990 farm bill.

Many farmers are still suffering from the aftermath of last summer's drought or are facing other weather related crop losses. While we recognize the efforts of this committee in adopting the Disaster Assistance Act of 1988 and its extension for 1989, there remains tremendous farm losses not compensated for by this drought relief.

The 1985 farm bill has been devastating; 2,500 farms are going out of business each week.

Consumers were supposed to benefit but something is definitely wrong when farmers are going broke and increasing numbers of families cannot afford to feed their children while food processing companies are reaping record profits.

We urge this committee to examine what is happening between the farm gate and the grocery checkout line.

The taxpayer has been footing the bill for a Farm Program that is neither keeping food costs down nor farmers on the land. We are asking Congress to adopt a policy that benefits family farmers, consumers, the environment, and the taxpayer.

We would like this committee to take a serious look at policies that enable farmers to receive a fair price at the marketplace. This would mean setting price support levels based upon farm cost of production for all commodities including livestock products.

We are subsidizing grain trades so they can sell our grain at below cost in an attempt to expand our markets. This practice is costly for taxpayers and destablizes the economies of other coun

tries. Furthermore, we are losing money and sacrificing our soil and water quality in the process. This does not make sense.

We recommend that the 1990 Farm Program address the current barriers to farming with fewer chemicals. Farmers who employ crop rotation to enhance their soil qualities should not be penalized by a reduction in corn base. We are serious about the need for economically feasible conservation. Supply management does make

sense.

We feel it is appropriate to emphasize the importance of the committee to study and closely monitor the continuing implementation of the 1987 Ag Credit Act. It is distressing that so few borrowers have received the kind of debt restructing envisioned under this act.

Of utmost concern is FmHA's method for calculating the least cost alternative.

The court's recent interpretation of the farmer's right to sue removes FCS one step further from public accountability and raises

even more concerns.

In closing, I would emphasize that if America is committed to a system of food production based on family owned and operated farms, then Congress must take a bold step and forge a new direction in the 1990 farm bill based on fair and profitable prices at the marketplace. It should protect producers who are struggling to recover from the "farm crisis," encourage new and reentry farmers, and promote farming practices which preserve and protect our soil and water resources.

Thank you for hearing my testimony and I look forward to working with you during the upcoming debate and passage of the 1990 farm bill.

[The prepared statement of Mrs. Haffner appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]

Mr. GLICKMAN. Thank you all for excellent testimony.

I just want to clarify one thing. Mr. Scher, the recommendations, were these-these were a variety of different recommendations? Mr. SCHER. It was an accumulation, not a consensus.

Mr. GLICKMAN. OK.

Mr. SCHER. We have a number of people on the committee, and of course, like I said when you sit down around the coffee pot, everybody knows what the problem is but everybody has a different way of getting there and we just took notes and what we did was we presented all the ideas.

Mr. GLICKMAN. Thank you very much. Ms. Long.

Ms. LONG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. John, I would like you to address if you will the concern that you stated regarding the environment and how the Federal Government might approach the concerns that have been expressed regarding the use of chemicals and pesticides. And what I am asking for is your recommendation if you were sitting in my seat, what is it that you would try to get written into the farm bill that would work very well for the farm community and at the same time satisfy the concerns of farmers and other who do have a concern regarding the environment?

Mr. CARAVETTA. That has been a big consideration here lately, even more so. We do need the ability to rotate, to be able to manage these different products. If we are able to rotate possibly