[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 9]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 12548-12551]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                         YUMA AGRICULTURE FORUM

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. BOB SCHAFFER

                              of colorado

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 10, 1999

  Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, this spring I held a widely-attended 
agriculture forum in Yuma, Colorado to hear from a panel of citizens 
representing Colorado's agriculture industry. Panelists shared their 
thoughts regarding the worsening agriculture economy in America and 
provided valuable suggestions for improving the industry's chances for 
success.
  Record-low commodity prices, disease and weather-related problems, 
coupled with declining export opportunities and a weak demand, have 
taken a devastating toll on America's agriculture industry. Farm income 
has fallen dramatically over the past two years and it is difficult to 
predict how soon it might rebound. While Congress recently helped stave 
off disaster in rural America with an emergency assistance package, it 
is quite evident serious long-term policy decisions must be implemented 
to ensure the lasting future of rural agriculture.
  Upon returning to Washington, D.C. from Yuma, I shared this report 
with House Agriculture Committee Chairman Larry Combest, my colleagues 
on the House Agriculture Committee and other key Members of Congress in 
order to provide them with the valuable information and suggestions I 
received from my constituents. This information has already proven 
quite helpful in prioritizing the agricultural policy agenda for the 
106th Congress and I have been asked to distribute it to all Members.
  Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I hereby submit for the Record, the 
summarized comments and suggestions of Colorado's agriculture 
community.

                dave frank, owner, mainstreet insurance

       When Mainstreet Insurance first began issuing multi-peril 
     insurance policies to producers, the 1985 farm program was in 
     effect which mandated participating farmers own crop 
     insurance to cover potential nominal and catastrophic losses. 
     This policy of mandatory coverage was reinforced under the 
     Freedom to Farm Act of 1995, which imposed additional 
     restrictions and sanctions upon uninsured producers. This is 
     good for agriculture, because it encourages sound risk 
     management practices among producers and can help prevent the 
     need for frequent taxpayer-funded government bailouts.
       However, following a year of historically low commodity 
     prices, natural disasters, and lost export opportunities due 
     to a worsening economic crisis in Asia and eroding markets in 
     Europe and Latin America, Congress in

[[Page 12549]]

     late 1998 found it necessary to provide nearly $6 billion in 
     farm disaster and market loss assistance for American 
     producers. Rather than provide higher relief payments to 
     those producers who purchased crop insurance than to those 
     who did not, Secretary Glickman provided the same level of 
     relief to all qualifying producers. There is little incentive 
     for some to invest in crop insurance if it is determined the 
     government will step in and provide the same level of 
     ``emergency'' assistance to all producers, regardless of 
     coverage.
       There are a number of ways to improve our current federal 
     crop insurance program. First of all, the federal government 
     should refrain from providing emergency or disaster relief to 
     producers who signed non-insured waivers giving up their 
     rights to any disaster payments. Much as an uninsured store-
     owner would not expect the government to take responsibility 
     for his or her losses in the event of a fire, an equally 
     uninsured farmer should not expect the government to cover 
     losses stemming from another unforeseen disaster.
       Secondly, the government should encourage higher levels of 
     crop insurance coverage among producers. Currently, the Risk 
     Management Agency (RMA) subsidizes the 50%, 55%, and 65% 
     coverage level premiums at 32% of cost, while only 
     subsidizing the 70% and 75% levels at 18% of cost. It is 
     difficult to encourage farmers to move from the 65% to 70% 
     coverage level if their indemnity will only increase a few 
     dollars while their premiums almost double. Instead, the RMA 
     should invert the subsidy schedule to encourage higher level 
     of coverage. Many U.S. counties are now testing coverage 
     plans up to 80% and 85%. The RMA should consider testing 
     plans up to 90%, 95%, or even 100% of farmers' Actual 
     Production History (APH).
       The RMA also must become more customer service-oriented and 
     more attentive to the changing needs of producers operating 
     under a new, market-drive agriculture program. Crop 
     production and crop practices have changed rapidly and 
     dramatically since the 1995 Farm Bill. Many farmers are 
     changing their rotations and planting different crops, while 
     others are planting continuous crops. There are a number of 
     clients who live in one county, yet their land extends over 
     into the next county. In many cases, the RMA allows a crop to 
     be insured in one but not the other. The land is the same, 
     the crop is the same, and the farmer is the same, yet only 
     part of the crop is allowed to be covered by crop insurance. 
     Discrepancies such as these discourage sound management 
     practices at the very time the government should be 
     encouraging them.


                RANDY WENGER, insurance agent, producer

       One of the biggest problems clients encounter centers 
     around the use of the Average Production History (APH). When 
     farmers have three or four years of losses in a row, the APH 
     suffers considerably. Furthermore, even though the APH is 
     capped at 20 percent, producers are assessed a 5 percent 
     surcharge in order to cap their policies, and therefore 
     suffer twice.
       The first way to improve the APH would be to eliminate the 
     5 percent surcharge. Secondly, the 20 percent cap on the APH 
     should be removed. Thirdly, the APH should not be allowed to 
     fall below the transitional year yields stated in the 
     actuarials. Many companies are aggressively pursuing new 
     and innovative policies for higher subsidies, but such 
     policies are often quite costly to acquire.
       It would also be very helpful to extend the insurance sales 
     deadline past March 15th, possibly until April 15th or May 
     1st. Such an extension would allow uninsured producers, or 
     those with policy caps, to sit down and discuss various 
     policy options with insurance providers to determine the most 
     appropriate and efficient plan.


        ELENA METRO, Executive Director, Colorado Pork Producers

       Agriculture producers are suffering considerably from 
     overly-burdensome federal environmental regulations often 
     based upon emotion rather than upon sound science. 
     Furthermore, environmental regulations, whether based upon 
     science or emotion, significantly drive up the price of 
     agricultural goods. Consumers increasingly want goods which 
     are convenient, nutritious, environmentally sound, and 
     inexpensive. While it is certainly the consumers right to 
     want these things, it is becoming more and more difficult, 
     even with new technology and increased efficiency, to provide 
     such products at the low prices consumers prefer. Burdensome 
     regulations needlessly drive up production costs and 
     subsequently consumer prices.
       America must work ever harder to open foreign export 
     markets for our producers and ensure free and fair trading 
     policies at home and abroad. Not only is it vital to secure 
     expanding overseas market-share for domestic goods, but we 
     must also guarantee fair competition at home. Statistics show 
     Americans are eating over four pounds of additional protein 
     per year. Such an increase suggests more of this protein will 
     be purchased from foreign producers, which in turn means we 
     must assure fair import policies and a fair competitive 
     environment for Colorado and U.S. producers.
       Urban encroachment is another issue of major concern to 
     farmers and ranchers and the future of agriculture. We are 
     losing more and more agricultural land to development each 
     year and in the process sacrificing valuable farmland which 
     can never be reclaimed for production agriculture. As an 
     illustration, there is a man who farms two miles away who had 
     just finished spraying his wheat field for pests. The next 
     day, he was walking on his land when he spotted two women 
     riding horses through his property. ``Excuse me ma'am, but 
     this is my land you are riding on,'' he said. ``But it's just 
     a field,'' one of the riders replied. ``No,'' the farmer 
     responded, ``I just sprayed chemicals on my crops yesterday 
     which could be hazardous to your horses.'' One of the women 
     spun her horse around to face him and said, ``Well, where do 
     you expect us to ride then?'' The farmer replied, ``If you 
     want to ride, then buy more land.''
       This story represents a common occurrence, where farmers 
     and ranchers, having kept to themselves and worked their land 
     in an often secluded, rural environment for generations, are 
     now experiencing encroachment from an ever-increasing 
     population. Old homesteads are being replaced and surrounded 
     by homes, businesses, shopping centers and apartment 
     complexes. If such growth is not somehow managed, planned, or 
     organized, the repercussions on the farming industry could 
     be great.
       For one thing, unemployed farmers and ranchers cannot 
     simply walk across the street to find a new job like people 
     who live in Denver. The loss of the hog industry to Eastern 
     Colorado would create mass unemployment and economic 
     depression. It would be similar to the loss of US West to 
     Denver. Secondly, the reduction in domestic agricultural 
     production would naturally lead to more reliance upon 
     imported food. There is the possibility such products would 
     not have the same high level of food safety expected of 
     domestic products.


      Larry Palser, Vice President, Colorado Wheat Administration

       There are many reasons for the wide-spread discouragement 
     among wheat producers today. U.S. producers are experiencing 
     the lowest wheat prices in eight years, coupled with the 
     largest stock since 1988. While acknowledging low prices can 
     be attributed to the cyclical nature of commodity markets, we 
     should also be working to turn the corner toward price 
     improvement by selling and exporting more wheat. There are 
     many reasons why export sales are not at the levels we would 
     prefer to see, but the two primary areas include overall 
     trade policy and sanctions reform.
       One of the primary aims of the Freedom to Farm bill was 
     increased market access for production. Over the past four 
     years, wheat imports by six countries (Cuba, Iran, Iraq, 
     Libya, North Korea, and Sudan) have more than doubled. 
     Unfortunately, however, the United States has imposed strict 
     trade sanctions prohibiting the export of U.S. agriculture 
     products to every one of these countries. This represents 
     approximately 15 percent of global demand for U.S. wheat 
     exports and amounts to the largest self-imposed market-loss 
     since the 1980 U.S.S.R. embargo. American farmers in 1998 
     harvested the largest supply of wheat this decade and now 
     face the lowest levels of serviceable imports to account for 
     the demand of the decade. This greatly contributes to the 
     price-depressing carryovers we are currently experiencing. 
     Access to these and other restricted markets is essential to 
     the long-term success of the wheat industry.
       Even with record-low prices for American wheat, foreign 
     competitors are capable of undercutting U.S. prices through 
     export subsidies such as those employed by the European 
     Union. In addition, the Canadian and Australian Wheat Boards 
     have utilized trade agreements to garner better tariff rates 
     and higher wheat prices. The U.S. government should be 
     fighting harder than ever to improve the competitive ability 
     of domestic producers by strengthening our negotiating 
     authority and securing more advantageous trade agreements. We 
     should also level the playing field somewhat by fully 
     utilizing the export enhancement programs, market development 
     programs, PL480 and others to regain our rightful percentage 
     of the world market. Finally, there should be in place a 
     permanent mechanism to reimburse producers for market losses 
     caused by U.S.-imposed sanctions and restrictions.
       In regards to crop insurance, the other panelists are 
     correct in their assessment we must do everything possible to 
     strengthen and enhance risk management programs for 
     producers. The federal funding mechanism should be inverted 
     so that higher costing coverage policies have their 
     premiums subsidized at a better rate. This would encourage 
     producers to purchase higher coverage policies. 
     Furthermore, if the United States moves away from federal 
     disaster assistance programs, the crop insurance program 
     and other risk management tools must provide adequate 
     coverage at an economical price for producers.


     STEVE THORN, Former Officer, Colorado Corn Growers Association

       Trade sanctions and trade policy issues have already been 
     mentioned by other panelists, but these are definitely very 
     vital issues for producers today. With over 70 global 
     economies off-limits to U.S. producers due to trade 
     sanctions, farmers and ranchers are subsequently denied 
     access to nearly 50% of the total world market. In the past 
     it has

[[Page 12550]]

     been said that three out of every four bushels of corn will 
     be used here in the United States, but that the price is 
     tagged to the one bushel we sell overseas. Whatever the 
     percentage is today going overseas, the prices we receive for 
     our products are a whole lot less than they used to be. While 
     U.S. producers are the most efficient coarse grain and 
     feedstuff growers in the world, they are certainly not 
     treated that way at home or abroad.
       Part of the problem stems from the very nature of 
     government-led farm programs. Once legislation is drafted, 
     debated by committees, and voted on by the entire Congress, 
     it ends up under the authority of unelected bureaucrats with 
     little or no accountability to the producers they are charged 
     with serving. The legislative proposal that once sounded so 
     simple and helpful ends up as a convoluted mess by the time 
     it works its way to the implementation stage. Most of the 
     expenditures do not end up going where they were intended to 
     go and policies rarely turn out right when implemented by the 
     agencies. County Farm Service Agency (FSA) representatives, 
     for instance, have had to postpone appointments for weeks 
     sometimes because of delays in receiving proper information 
     and support from the USDA.
       It is very important to provide producers with a strong and 
     viable safety net, but whatever policy is enacted must be 
     clearly delineated for agency follow-through and must allow 
     for significant Congressional oversight. Lawmakers are 
     capable of crafting successful legislation, but if it gets 
     passed off to bureaucrats with little care or understanding 
     of the original intent of the bill then it simply turns into 
     another worthless piece of paper.
       In addition, while Congress by nature must establish rules, 
     regulations, laws and initiatives which apply to the entire 
     country, there needs to be an understanding that what is 
     right for Iowa is not necessarily right for northeast 
     Colorado. Planting and harvesting times are different as are 
     decisions regarding financial planning and insurance 
     coverage. Colorado producers must be taken into consideration 
     along with the rest of the country when deadlines are 
     determined.
       Finally, it is important to enact Fast Track trade 
     negotiating authority for the president in order to ensure 
     clean, effective trade negotiations and to help secure fair 
     trade agreements for American producers. The North American 
     Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) sounded good on the surface, but 
     there are several aspects which have turned out to be 
     different than anticipated. The Mexican government, for 
     instance, has not been importing dry beans at the level 
     they said they were going to import. Not only that, but 
     they have set up a permit system to restrict the level of 
     imports and have not even been taking delivery on the 
     beans for which they purchased the permits. Dry beans may 
     store for longer periods of time than some wheat and some 
     corn, and certainly longer than pork and beef, but they 
     will not store forever. Facing such restrictions and 
     uncertainties is harmful to American producers.


        ROGER HICKERT, President, Colorado Livestock Association

       Cattle prices historically run in ten-year cycles. The last 
     ten years, however, between natural occurrences and various 
     issues within the industry, have brought significant changes 
     to those cycles. In the early 1990's, specifically the winter 
     of 1992, the industry saw big losses in the feeding industry 
     along the high plains of the Texas Panhandle, Oklahoma, and 
     Southwest Kansas. This resulted in a gap in the market and 
     extremely high prices in 1993. As soon as the inventory was 
     there, however, the market immediately corrected itself and 
     that created extreme lows and major losses for the industry. 
     Those losses now have extended for approximately five years 
     and have been stretched out somewhat by the concentration in 
     the industry. This concentration appears to have extended to 
     the feeding industry as well as the packing industry and has 
     created a whole new business atmosphere with different 
     players and different reporting practices.
       The National Cattlemen's Beef Association (NCBA) in its 
     last convention moved to support mandatory price reporting of 
     all live sales. This issue is a two-edged sword because not 
     only would the high prices being eliminated need to be 
     reported, but so would the unreported low prices. Most 
     producers probably would not come in and say ``well, I sold 
     cattle today for $0.58 even though the price is $0.62.'' 
     Those are going to show up and probably change the average, 
     so again, it is a two-edged sword. But it would help to 
     determine what the good cattle are selling for.
       Many of the problems faced by the industry, particularly 
     the equity loss incurred over the past twelve months, have 
     been some of the most tremendous ever faced by the feeding 
     industry. Much of it can be attributed to indications the 
     cattle industry was at a bullish point in the cycle and many 
     in the industry moved away from risk management and dropped 
     positions on the futures board. For many big companies, like 
     Coke Industries, the loss was just too extreme to stay in the 
     feeding business.
       Another issue is the movement toward more alliances. 
     Producer, feeder, and packer alliances are beginning to 
     become the branded product, and as the industry moves toward 
     branded products, producers and feeders will have to be very 
     careful which brand or alliance they get into. Dr. Gary Smith 
     of Colorado State University (CSU) suggests that in the next 
     five years, those not involved in an alliance will probably 
     not be here in the next five years, and that choosing an 
     alliance will probably be the most important decision they 
     make within that time period.
       A significant concern for the industry right now is the 
     European Union (EU) hormone ban on beef, particularly since 
     exports account for 10 percent of the industry's business. 
     This ban is nothing more than a trade barrier because there 
     is no scientific evidence anything is wrong with the meat. It 
     is simply a way to deny market-share to U.S. producers. The 
     American beef producer can compete with anybody in the world 
     on a level playing field, but they cannot compete against 
     Canadian producers who benefit from heavy grain subsidies and 
     can feed cattle for half the price. It is not fair that 
     Canadian producers benefit from this subsidy and then haul 
     their live cattle to local areas to be slaughtered and 
     stamped by the USDA.
       While the Colorado Livestock Association has officially 
     taken a neutral stance on the country-of-origin labeling 
     issue, it is certainly one with which the industry must 
     contend. There are many in and out of the industry calling 
     for such labeling, but such a policy, if enacted, could work 
     both ways for the U.S. industry. The more informed consumer, 
     it is believed, will prefer to purchase U.S. beef, which is 
     widely considered to be the best and cheapest product 
     available in the world. But there are some among the public 
     who may decide for whatever reason to purchase Australian or 
     Argentinean grass-fed beef instead.
       Congress must also work to pressure federal agencies to cut 
     down on unnecessary regulatory burdens. Environmental 
     regulations from the Environmental Protection Agency, in 
     particular, have grown ever more restrictive and 
     significantly cut into agriculture profits. The industry is 
     working hard to stay ahead of the regulations, but many 
     smaller feed lots find it very difficult to afford the 
     $15,000 to $20,000 just to keep up with the environmental 
     regulations.


                 JERRY SONNENBERG, Colorado Farm Bureau

       It is important any environmental regulations promulgated 
     by the EPA be based upon sound science. These regulatory 
     burdens do cost a lot of money and do cut down on 
     profitability and productivity, but if they are deemed to be 
     absolutely necessary, they must work for everybody and be 
     backed by sound science.
       Country-of-origin labeling is an important policy to 
     implement. There are some who may prefer Australian or 
     Argentinean beef, but the fact is most consumers believe 
     American producers raise the best and safest commodities and 
     food in the world and we should be confident and proud to put 
     our name on it.
       It is imperative the United States works to open foreign 
     markets. As mentioned earlier, the more than 70 countries 
     currently sanctioned by the U.S. government represents a 
     significant market for the U.S. agriculture industry. 
     Agriculture generally takes the brunt of most imposed 
     sanctions, and when U.S. products are denied access to a 
     market, another exporting country will supply the product in 
     our place.
       We must not eliminate and sanction foreign markets at a 
     time when world population is forecast to increase, and 
     possibly double, within the next 50 to 60 years. The United 
     States has a surplus of agricultural products, yet 25 percent 
     of the world is considered to be under-nourished. The U.S. 
     must find ways to deliver its goods to that 25 percent, 
     whether through the utilization of the Export Enhancement 
     Program (EEP) or through other means.
       The Endangered Species Act (ESA) has really tied the hands 
     of American producers domestically through its use of 
     ambiguous and disputable policies and restrictions. In 
     particular, the designation and regulation of potential 
     Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse habitat land has not been based 
     upon known facts or sound science. For example, at the same 
     time the Fish and Wildlife Service documents the mouse never 
     strays beyond 150 feet from waterways, the EPA is calling for 
     a 300-foot buffer. The EPA's regulation simply does not 
     correspond with the known facts and science as documented by 
     the agency with jurisdiction over the issue. The burden of 
     proof must lie with the federal government in proving beyond 
     a doubt the presence of this species, in addition to 
     documented proof it is in fact threatened, before imposing 
     burdensome regulations on America's farmers and ranchers.


      RON OHLSON, Director, Yuma County Farm Service Agency (FSA)

       The role of the Farm Service Agency (FSA) is to work face 
     to face with local producers and help them utilize available 
     programs and tools. When assisting with programs such as the 
     Crop Loss Disaster Assistance Program, the fewer levels of 
     bureaucracy the program must pass through on the way to the 
     producer, the better. This program, for instance,

[[Page 12551]]

     looks nothing like the plan originally passed by the Congress 
     because of all the bureaucracy. There should be some way for 
     local FSA representatives to make minor policy changes and 
     avoid duplication with other agencies in order to better 
     serve producers. Over the past seven or eight years there has 
     also been a deterioration in the grass-roots nature of 
     coordination and assistance. Now, local control is 
     increasingly considered to be an area, state, or regional 
     office. This assistance must continue to be administered by 
     those who know the producers and their needs best.
       While a number of farm programs are supposed to be phased 
     out under the Farm Bill, agency staff is being reduced faster 
     than the programs they are expected to administer. Ongoing 
     programs are difficult to maintain, particularly when 
     insufficient staff is available to administer and implement 
     the large, ad-hoc programs that develop quickly and 
     unexpectedly like this Crop Loss Disaster Assistance Program. 
     County offices must be given the time and ability to 
     implement the programs correctly and efficiently the first 
     time. The implementation software for this particular 
     program, for instance, did not arrive from Washington, D.C. 
     in a timely manner and it made things very difficult.
       It is getting to the point that many offices do not know 
     how they are going to handle the high workload. The counties 
     of Eastern Colorado have among the largest workload around. 
     The seven counties in this district have a higher workload 
     than Utah and Nevada. Large programs and tasks are delivered 
     to the understaffed offices as priority items but none of 
     their other projects can be set aside or delayed. The level 
     of paperwork is immense too--it might be helpful to revisit 
     the Paperwork Reduction Act to determine if it is being fully 
     implemented.
       Many producers in this area are also very concerned about 
     the Kyoto treaty. This treaty, if approved and implemented, 
     will have a severe impact on the agriculture industry, 
     which is expected to shoulder a large share of the burden.


  deb nichols, executive administrator, irrigation research foundation

       The Irrigation Research Foundation is a privately owned, 
     non-profit, independent research and demonstration site. It 
     is the only research station focusing on irrigation and is 
     located over the Ogallala Aquifer. The primary purpose is to 
     find ways to make production more economical and to 
     demonstrate wise water use.
       Earlier this decade, a group of local producers wanted to 
     see studies useful to their own production and throughout the 
     region. It was important to know what populations to plan, 
     ways to work with soil compaction to produce better yields, 
     different options for setting up variety trials, how to make 
     more of a profit, and a way to see all of the different 
     companies side-by-side to inspect their premier varieties. Ed 
     and Jessie Troutman purchased a quarter of land north of Yuma 
     in January 1994 from the Dekalb Seed Company and established 
     the Irrigation Research Foundation. Today, the foundation has 
     a board made up of diversified, farm-oriented individuals, 
     both retired and working, who represent the banking industry, 
     the insurance industry, dairy associations, cattle producers, 
     commercial fertilizer sales people, and individuals from the 
     University Cooperative Extension.
       Some of the crops raised in 1998 were corn, wheat, 
     sunflowers, soybeans, pinto beans, milo, sugar beets, millet, 
     canola, field peas, and cotton. There is a silage plot, Iowa 
     corn, transgenetic corn resistant to specific insects, a corn 
     population study, herbicide-resistant corn, and the premier 
     corn study is the water and nutrient management study.
       The Irrigation Research Foundation works with Dr. Maudie L. 
     Casey, a water specialist from Colorado State University 
     (CSU), on a study which looks at variable fertilizer rates, 
     population levels, and irrigation rates. This study is 
     designed to determine the optimum which will produce the 
     greatest profit, not necessarily the greatest yield.
       In 1998, the foundation acquired a 5-year lease of dry land 
     from the City of Yuma. While the primary focus of the 
     Irrigation Research Foundation is on water, dry land research 
     is also very important to many members. Evolving technology 
     has presented new ways to manage dry land. The foundation is 
     demonstrating ways to use continual cropping with various 
     rotations to not only produce an annual yield, but also to at 
     the same time preserve the soil, reduce wind erosion, and 
     help wildlife.
       The Irrigation Research Foundation also provides various 
     forms of public service to the community. The foundation is 
     currently arranging to hold several classes for the community 
     through Morgan Community College, there are sugar beet 
     planter test days where producers can have their equipment 
     tested free of cost, training is available for commercial 
     applicators and emergency personnel in the handling of 
     hazardous products, such as fertilizers, chemicals, 
     pesticides, and herbicides. The foundation also produces for 
     the public an informative annual report and holds several 
     field days throughout the year. Wheat field days are held 
     in June, sugar beet days are held in September, and the 
     premier show is the Farm Show held in August which allows 
     affiliated companies to showcase their products, provides 
     an opportunity for producers to learn about the 
     foundation's studies, and presents an opportunity for many 
     individuals in the industry to interact with one another.


     Ross Tuell, Member, Yuma County Economic Development Committee

       The Yuma County Economic Development Committee is funded by 
     the County of Yuma and the two cities of Yuma and Wray. The 
     committee focuses primarily on retaining and expanding 
     existing businesses by serving as an information service, 
     helping write business plans, locate funding sources, and 
     complete documents and forms. The committee also looks to add 
     value to existing operations and add new businesses to the 
     community. The most important effort is keeping producers on 
     the farm, otherwise we lose them and the stores in town that 
     serve them. One challenge is balancing the positives and 
     negatives of expanding economic growth. The bigger the farms 
     get, which they presently are, the larger the pieces of 
     equipment they require, which means fewer implement dealers, 
     fewer employees, and fewer businesses in town.
       From a producer's standpoint, the policies that would help 
     agriculture the most are those which would expand markets and 
     reduce burdensome regulations and expenses. Specifically, the 
     Congress and the president should work to enact Fast Track 
     trade negotiating authority, eliminate the death tax, cut 
     capital gains taxes, and lower the marginal income tax rate.
       While some opposed to cutting capital gains taxes and the 
     death tax claim it benefits only the extraordinarily rich in 
     the country, it is simply not the case. The extremely wealthy 
     do not worry much about these taxes. If they have something 
     they want to sell or bequeath, they are going to do it anyway 
     and the tax is not going to affect them much. But family 
     farms are different. Families must sell the farm just to pay 
     the taxes and then nothing is left.
       Furthermore, as mentioned earlier in the forum, the U.S. 
     must revise its policy regarding the sanctions currently 
     imposed on over 70 countries. As Dr. Barry Flinsbaugh from 
     Kansas State University (KSU) has stated, if the U.S. is 
     going to continue using food as a weapon, we ought to change 
     the way we do it. Instead of holding it back, we should 
     simply give it to them. We are not fighting the people who 
     are starving, we are fighting governments, and the 
     governments do not care that the people are starving, which 
     is why we have human rights concerns in the first place. It 
     is much easier to throw forty metric tons of wheat at them 
     than it is to throw a million-dollar piece of electronic 
     hardware at them.


                 Dave Thomas, Yuma County Commissioner

       Commissioner Thomas addressed his comments to me. He said, 
     ``Congressman, I would like to thank you for coming to Yuma 
     County and for being our voice in Washington because we have 
     a lot of concerns here today. I know you will carry those 
     forward. All of the concerns mentioned today affect Eastern 
     Colorado and I know you will be our voice.''


          Cindy Hickert, Former Washington County Commissioner

       While not a resident of Yuma County, Commissioner Hickert 
     does conduct business here. For one reason or another, the 
     Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been exerting more 
     pressure on the Health Department to develop more of a paper 
     trail. It should really be more important to get things done 
     correctly than to concentrate more staff on creating a paper 
     trail. As was mentioned earlier in the forum, any new 
     regulations and restrictions must be based upon sound 
     science.
       Mr. Speaker, I would like to close by thanking all of the 
     participants for their input. Mr. Tim Stulp moderated the 
     forum and did an outstanding job of drawing many helpful 
     thoughts and comments from our expert panel of speakers. I 
     might also point out Mr. Speaker, that mid-way through the 
     forum, Mr. Combest of Texas addressed the crowd, by telephone 
     and loudspeaker, and assured Colorado producers of efforts in 
     the House to strengthen America's agriculture economy.

     

                          ____________________