It is my opportunity this morning, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Marlenee, to try to develop an appreciation for summer fallow country. If you will refer to chart 1 in my testimony there, you will see the precipitation that occurs here in the Pacific Northwest in dryland wheat country. You will note there is none in the summertime. Now most of the country has summer precipitation. This affects our environment quite a bit. The environment will affect what goes into a Farm Program.

You will also notice, look at the evaporation, what takes place. We must set a moisture line. We do that with tillage in June to stop the loss of moisture. We do not get enough rainfall in 1 year for our crop. Therefore we use the summer fallow, gather the second year's crop through conservation methods, and we are in a summer fallow regime.

Go to the second chart there. You will see grain yield and three different rotations used. Wheat following wheat, continuous wheat; wheat with a legume, in this case peas and wheat fallow, and you can see why this is wheat fallow country.

I hear and read that the 1990 Food Security Act will resemble the 1985 act, and I assume this is true. There are some difficulties in operating some components of the 1985 act. Now you might say, oh Larry, this morning we are together on philosophy and generalities of how to put that bill together. Not specifics. But an act is only as strong as it can be carried out. If the nut does not go on the bolt, then the pie in the sky philosophy did not serve its purpose well.

Mr. GLICKMAN. You are not implying there are any nuts in Congress, are you? [Laughter.]

Mr. COPPOCK. I was just trying to use an example. [Laughter.]

I appreciate you cracking a joke because it lets the pressure off us a little bit. I suspected this morning you said you were Democrats and Republicans, no matter where you are from, I suspect this morning we are all gathered as wheat growers. I think that is good because we can address these things. I will make some assumptions, probably, but I feel you will understand.

I will try to convince you of some things, and they will inter-tie with and impact on my farming operation and the program at all of these things.

First of all, we must revise and modify the universal soil loss equation. Let me say that I have asked some people, since I am in research, I have asked the gentleman from the Columbia Basin Ag Research Center to be here this morning. John Suzell is the hydrologist and he works with that erosion equation. He is here. So when I make some suggestions, I am not just trying to blow smoke up your leg. The researcher is here to support the request that I am making.

The original drafts are from a long-term management study, and Dr. Paul Rasmussen, who is in the audience.

We work with this universal soil loss equation. Our district conservationist from the Soil Conservation System, Bob Alloman is here. So we are here in a method of compromise, but I want to make some strong statements and try to convince you of some things.

Some conservation compliance plans require planting by September 5. This date is derived from the USLE and a ground cover requirement. Research shows that seeding before October 1 opens the crop to Russian wheat aphid, Cercosperalla rot, and Rhizoctonia root rot. I also would like to point out Dr. Richard Smiley, who is our pathologist, is here also this morning.

The USLE does not have a component for insects and diseases, yet the universal soil loss equation is the guide for writing planting dates in conservation compliance plans.

The universal soil loss equation does not recognize incorporated residue or surface roughness, both of which can reduce erosion. We are writing compulsory plans from a knowledge base that is insufficient. We are writing plans that research indicates should not be complied with in summer fallow country.

We must require the Soil Conservation Service or us together or however, to revise and modify the USLE to recognize insects, diseases, and erosion-reducing tillage when writing compulsory conservation compliance in dryland summer fallow.

I also understand in reading and listening that perhaps to participate in the 1990 act we might have to use a rotation. I have a comment in there that says I can't stand rotations. For an agronomist to make that, you would think he is out of his tree or something, so let me tell you what I mean when I make that statement. Table 19 in your deal is again from this long-term study which is referenced in the references at the end. That is made up of alternate crops. That entire two page table. There is not one crop there that grosses more than $78 per acre. Those are the alternate crops. Those are what rotation would be made of if you were to build rotations in summer fallow country. Twenty-five bushels of wheat at $4 an acre is $100 gross per acre, and if rotations come in I am then asked to build a rotation at a lower gross than what I would get with just 25 bushels of wheat. I would be hard pressed to continue on with 25 bushels of wheat.

Now you might say Larry, you are talking about economic things. Well, I have a long-term commitment with my banker. I have to make this consideration. I have a restructured Federal land bank loan. I have a long-term commitment. These kinds of things must be taken into consideration as you write the bill.

I do not bring this out because I want special treatment for me. I feel I am representative of a group of folks.

Modification of the universal soil loss equation and not requiring practices that are not economic unless we are compensated are mandatory to writing the 1990 Food Security Act.

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

Mr. GLICKMAN. Thank you, Larry.

Mr. Harris.

STATEMENT OF JAMES O. HARRIS ON BEHALF OF THE OREGON WHEAT GROWERS LEAGUE AND OREGON WEED BOARD

Mr. HARRIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Jim Harris. I farm north of Pendleton.

I would like to discuss two issues today, and I apologize for not having any written comments. The first concerns the definition of LISA. I am sure you have heard all kinds of definitions of LISA. The only thing I am going to say is that in this country, as I am sure in your districts also, farmers today are farming ground that was farmed by their fathers, their grandfathers, their great grandfathers, et cetera. They are intending to pass that land to their children and to their grandchildren. So in essence the farmer of today is into sustainable agriculture.

We are also into low inputs, and because of your farm background I know you understand farm inputs are expensive and it does not bode very well for a farmer with a long-term commitment to put in more inputs than are necessary to produce the crop.

So in writing the Food Security Act, I would hope that references to LISA are kept to a minimum.

The other thing I would like to discuss today, I am also here representing the Oregon Weed Board which is a committee that operates within the Oregon Department of Agriculture. It has come to our attention that a problem exists with the proliferation of weeds on Conservation Reserve Program lands.

This is not only noxious weeds but common weeds as well. This is leading to problems with neighbors. It is also creating a situation where we will have, if these lands ever do come back into production they are going to be extremely weedy and it is going to be extremely hard to get them back and make them productive in a short period of time.

I see the problem as being not anyone's particular fault. I think there are lots of different factors. Part of the problem is just bad husbandry by some individuals with CRP contracts. Part of the problem is inconsistent interpretation of regulations by professional staff. I was told by an SCS employee from Colorado that Colorado is enforcing the provisions in the Conservation Reserve contracts, and that they are levying fines against just common weeds. We do not see that happening in the State of Oregon.

I see part of the problem being the lack of personnel to do enforcement action inspections and so on within the counties. Also I think there is a reluctance by county ASCS committees to levy fines in an area that is somewhat gray.

So I would hope this problem could be addressed by the Congress. I see this as being potential for litigation in which the Federal Government could be named as a corespondent, so I think it is worth the attention of the Congress to look at it.

Thank you very much.

Mr. GLICKMAN. Thank you.

Mr. Pryor.

STATEMENT OF EARL PRYOR, MEMBER, OREGON WHEAT
COMMISSION

Mr. PRYOR. Good morning. For the record, my name is Earl Pryor.

The testimony you have before you is basically divided into four parts. It talks about the goals of a Farm Program; some brief comments on the 1985 Food Security Act; some other problems I would

like to speak to briefly; the 1990 Farm Program proposal; and how it interacts with what we have now and how it can supersede some of those areas. In the end is a summation or basically a conclusion. First I would like to speak to what the goals of a Farm Program are. I think we are all in agreement with what those are. We want, as farmers and as bureaucrats and congressional Members, I think we all want to produce for the market and not the Government granary. We would prefer to receive our income from the marketplace. We would like to have equal income opportunity with our international brothers. We have examples of what happens in the ECC and Japan, et cetera. Saudi Arabia is a prime example of grower subsidies going on internationally. We all want wholesome, plentiful food at an attractive price.

I was on board as president of the National Association of Wheat Growers in 1984 and had an opportunity to testify before your committee and other various committees about the program. I would like to comment on some of the problems I perceive in that program.

Essentially the Food Security Act of 1985 was driven by a fire. sale mentality. We had stocks that we needed to get rid of. It was also linked to a voluntary production control program. Voluntary meaning funding. We essentially bribed people to get into the program so we could control production.

It was designed to wring excess capacity and resources from the agricultural complex. I think we succeeded admirably with the benefit of 2 succeeding years of drought.

The Conservation Reserve Program which I testified in favor of before your committee has had some impacts on rural communities, particularly those that have low production and highly erodible land. It was a big mistake to allow a cap of 25 percent. It should have been lower. It has had some tremendous impacts on those specified areas. I live in one. I know. Our Main Street businesses are practically decimated. It has had a disastrous effect.

I also testified in favor of encouraging rural development and mounting an effort to assist those communities. We are now finally beginning to address this issue belatedly and I think in a very inadequate manner at this point. It is going to take some real thought and work.

The "Mississippi Christmas Tree" triggered voluminous rules out of ASCS. I think it disillusioned not only the farmers but the ASCS local staffs, too. They worked their fannies off out there trying to keep everybody abreast of what was going on. It was really a traumatic experience for all of us.

I think this points up that we need a more simplified program. I hope to present some ideas toward that end today.

Congress needs to reexamine their subsidy programs. I refer to import quota cases. I noticed in reading an editorial by Marshall Loeb who is the managing editor of Fortune magazine, reported that the automobile import quotas saved 55,000 jobs annually. It is costing $5.8 billion to do that, which comes out to $105,000 per job saved.

The carbon steel quota system which we are now readdressing, has run as a 4-year quota system, is calculated to save 9,000 jobs at

an annual cost of $6.8 billion and it works out for a subsidy of $750,000 per job.

How does this square with a $50,000 limitation in the Farm Program? How many agricultural jobs are we saving and how does that figure out? What is the equity there? Have we really stopped to consider what is going on in those quota programs?

I think Congressman Smith would be extremely interested in what's happening with the beef quota system. What it is doing to our own local industry.

We have some other legislative bruises out there. Deregulation, in particular. The transportation industry has allowed the railroads to abandon rural lines almost at will, with no oversight from the ICC. I have personal experience there, too. We were able to turn that around, but I see we were just listed as a category 1 again as a first step toward abandonment again.

Deregulation also increased truck traffic on our rural roads. What we are looking at in our community is a secondary road that was built back in 1939. Deregulation will put more trucks on those roads increasing the expenditures for the secondary roads and which will also be financed through some Federal contribution.

Going further, let's look back at our tax codes which we just restructured recently. It removed the income averaging option from agriculture, which is admittedly, a very cyclical industry. It is abusive in that it is costing us more taxes, a lot of us do not have those extra funds to pay.

We also lost, compared with other industries, in terms of the investment credit phaseout.

I would like to speak to the interstate banking system. We have a bank in our community which is now an interstate bank. Less than 10 percent of their deposits are on loan in our county. We have a local bank and they are up to the limit in terms of their local loan capacity. This points out the difference in interstate and local banks. Interstate banks take those funds to the metropolitan area where they can get a higher interest rate. It is good business for them, but it is poor business for the local community.

Next I would like to address the 1990 Farm Program. We are at a moment in history where we have a unique opportunity to do some restructuring of the 1985 Farm Program. We are at a point where we have very low stocks, and we are also at a point where we have a good price structure.

I propose that you consider initiating a production marketing loan for producers of feed grains, wheat, rice, and upland cotton, and maybe even soybeans. This loan would be a 9-month recourse loan, not a nonrecourse loan. The idea being that we are going to move our stocks. We are not going to put them in Government granaries any more. We are going to put them on the international market.

The eligibility for this program would be that you would sign up for the Farm Program. Those not wishing to be in the farm program could go to the local bank and put up their grain for collateral and store it at their own will, so it does not inhibit individual activity.

The loan level would be a function of the commodities international market price, plus an allocation designed to offset producer