INDIANA RURAL ORGANIZING 3951 N. MERIDIAN. INDIANAPOLIS. IN 46208 317-921-1120 PROJECT Before the House Agriculture Sub-Committee on Wheat, Columbia City, Indiana August 8, 1989 I want to thank you for the opportunity to appear before the subcommittee today. I am Francis Bradley, a lifetime family farmer from Daviess County, Indiana. It has been my privilage to farm the same land as my father, grandfather, and great grandfather. The land originally came into our family in the 1850's. Our farm is truly a family farm as my son and grandsons are joining in the farm operation. My opportunity to care for this land through my lifetime has afforded great personal satisfaction to me and it is my intention that this farm will continue as a family farm. Webster Craig of Economy, Indiana, also a family farmer, and I are co-chairs of the Indiana Rural Organizing Project. This Presently we are being advised of the great and urgent need for government funding for the re-development of our rural communities. It would be wise to remember that much of the need for this rural redevelopment has accompanied the demise and liquidation of the family farms in the rural communities. It is also somewhat ironic that at the same time our government farm assistance, through the commodity programs, has been directed toward larger and larger farming units, the Soviet Union is endeavoring to bring their family farmers back to their farms. Any effective program of economic development of rural communities must begin by providing for the continuation of the family farm. Commodity supports, deficiency payments and lower commodity market prices simply do not produce the desired result of sustaining family farms. Present programs have been a "bonanza" for the families who "farm" the people who do the farming, but they are at best an indirect approach to the most basic farm problems: 1. The inability to service debt. 2. The recapitalization of farm investments. Government programs must recognize the different situations of the people who are engaged in production agriculture. The deficiency payments and the mandatory production of the 1985 Farm Bill completely negate the effect of supply and demand in the market price and assure continued market prices below the cost of production. The world price for grain is always slightly less than the U.S. price and it is the "Merchants of Grain" who would have us believe that our prices must be lower and lower to INDIANA RURAL ORGANIZING 3951 N. MERIDIAN, INDIANAPOLIS. IN 46208 317-921-1120 PROJECT meet greatly exaggerated world competition. Grain companies and commodity traders do not produce grain and they should not receive storage payments for grain that is to be sold. If grain cannot be produced and marketed at a price level which is profitable to the producer, the grain should not be produced. It is time to reconsider the loan programs of the 1950's, 1960's, and early 1970's which were so effective at keeping farmers on the farm. These were sound, proven, and workable programs which provided the basis for the stability and continuation of the family farm at a cost that was affordable to the taxpayer. From the vantage point of history, let us consider briefly what has transpired in the farm programs of the past 40 years. Original farm programs administered by A.S.C.S. and S.C.S. were much simpler, and much more cost effective. These programs provided the assistance to the farmer to develop the production potential of the land and at the same time conserve the land for future generations. Presently A.S.C.S. and S.C.S. offices are the "biggest game in town" and are amassing mountains of statistics which are of questionable value except to those who would reap a profit from the statistics! A series of relevant questions: leave to our succeeding generations? What legacy do we wish to A land eroded and depleted, our water supply polluted by the ever increasing use of chemicals which are necessitated by the mandated production of the 1985 Farm Bill? Why not put the family farms back into the 1990 Farm Bill? Can we not learn from the recent past and have farm legislation that provides for the protection of the land and the water? Government programs should and must provide "Economic Justice" to the family farm and the rural community. STATEMENT OF CHRIS FOSTER, FARMER, INDIANA CITIZEN ACTION COALITION and NATIONAL FAMILY FARM COALITION: BEFORE THE HOUSE AGRICULTURE SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE 1990 FARM BILL: FIELD HEARING JILL LONG - AUGUST 8, 1989 Thank you Representative Long and members of the It I would like to take this opportunity to present our assessment of the current situation and the effects of the 1985 Food Security Act and I would like to give you some thoughts on what should be incorporated into the credit section of the 1990 Farm Bill. As a family farmer, and as a farm advocate with both the In all these areas, the 1985 act has fallen far short of The majority of any increase in the net cash income is due 1000 production. For those few farmers not hit by the drought, the increase in market prices helped those farmers cashflow, often for the first time in many years. If this year shows record crop production, as it very well might, prices will again fall and farmers will probably break even or once again not recover their costs of production. For family farmers, rural communities, the consumer, and the taxpayer the 1985 Farm Bill has been devastating. According the American Bankers Association, 484,000 family farms have gone out of business since 1985. 2,500 farms are going out of business each week. In Indiana between 1982-85, 5,000 farms were lost and in one year between 1986-87 another 5,000 were lost. Among those farms lost, is my own. In addition. the rural economy of Southern Illinois where our farm was located, and many other rural communities have not been able to absorb farmers and others who have been forced to find alternative employment. have left their homes and relocated, uprooting their families in order to find work. Although it was a relativly easy decision to leave, faced with no money to buy groceries or pay the rent, it has not been easy to Many assimilate into a new part of the country and a new "culture". The "cost of the farm crisis" will take a toll on both rural and urban areas for the next decade or longer. Rural poverty levels are now 35% higher than those of urban areas. Nearly 17% of rural Americans currently earn below the poverty line. The disintegration of rural economies has forced large scale movement from rural communities. According to USDA, nearly one million people left rural areas from 1986-87, this was up from 630,000 the previous year. Over 1.6 million people are unemployed in rural areas. More than half of the hospital closures in 1988 were in rural areas. Schools and local businesses have suffered, and minority farmers have been driven from their land in unprecedented numbers. If the present trend continues, black farmers will be landless by the year 2000. Farm policy effects more than farmers and this must be taken into consideration when forging farm policy. This One would expect that when farm prices continue to fall, that consumers would be spending less on groceries. has not been the case. We know from past history that farm prices do not have a strong correlation with grocery prices. As farm prices have fallen, retail prices have continued to climb. In effect, farmers are going broke and increasing numbers of urban and rural families cannot afford to feed their children. This is happening while food processing companies are reaping record profits. Angry farmers and consumers urge this committee to research the reasons for this phenomenon and design 1990 legislation to correct this inequity. The taxpayer has been footing the bill for a federal farm program that is neither keeping food costs down nor farmers |