keting tool. And any marketing tools we can use I think would be very beneficial. So, John, go ahead and respond.

Mr. PAYNE. What we're trying to do is get rid of that old joke, the difference between a farmer and a dog is when you let the dog in the back door, he quits whining. That's the approach we're trying. We would like that joke to go away. So if there is an incentive there to be able to take a position without actually owning a cash crop, then he doesn't have much to whine about.

Mr. HASTINGS. OK. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chair

man.

The CHAIRMAN. I want to thank the panel. I've got to say in full disclosure, my first trip to Idaho was 2 years ago. And I told Helen and Mike after I made that trip that it's first time in my life that I've ever eaten in a restaurant and asked for doggie bag for the potato. That's something to be proud of. Now I found out it may have come from Washington. You-all got good potatoes up here.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, that Washington potato came from Idaho.

The CHAIRMAN. Whatever. Thank you very much. And we'll call our second panel of witnesses to the table at this time.

Mr. Greg Garatea, who is a livestock producer from Paul, ID; Mr. Gregory Goertz, who is a wheat and cattle producer from Wheatland, WY; Mrs. June Hartley, who is an onion, wheat, and corn producer from Nyssa, OR; Mr. John Hays, who is a cow/calf operator from Unity, OR. Mr. Brad Little is a wool producer from Emmett, ID. Mr. Felix Tomlinson is a tree fruit producer from Hood River, OR. Mr. Richard Wittman is a crop, cattle, and timber producer from Culdesac, ID.

We will take a brief recess before we begin this panel.

[Recess.]

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Garatea, if you would, please.

STATEMENT OF G.C. “GREG” GARATEA, LIVESTOCK
PRODUCER, PAUL, ID

Mr. GARATEA. Welcome to Idaho. Welcome back to Idaho. I'm the current president of the Idaho Cattle Association. I'm a private lands rancher and have a small feedlot in the Magic Valley, which is south central Idaho.

I'd like to briefly bring up a current issue, that being the fire in Los Alamos which is turning into a total disaster right now. What I want everybody to reflect back over the last 10 years is the increase of wildfires and intensity of these wildfires. And I know there is going to be an investigation that happens after this fire, and I want the people of powers that be to recognize the contribution grazing has to reducing fuel loads so these fires aren't so intense. We also recognize, as ranchers, the tool of controlled burning as it enhances forage and wildlife habitat. We also understand the intensity of these fires if the fuel load is not reduced.

As I travel around the State of Idaho as the president and talk to other ranchers and feedlot operators, I'm totally amazed and mind-boggled at just how bloated and intrusive our Government has become, both on our private and our business lives. And to bring it home, 30 years ago, the Idaho Cattle Association had a total of 23 resolutions on the books, not one of them dealing with

private property. The year 2000, we have 129 resolutions to deal with, over half of them dealing with private property, public lands, and endangered species.

When I produce and sell cattle, I am paid for the quality and the quantity that I generate, plain and simple. I'm paid more for better quality and paid less for a lesser quality. I would like to see the Government possibly use that same theory, in other words, using a vision, identify the target you want us to go for, the goals you want us to go for, then stand back and let American ingenuity and creativity take hold. Let us determine how and which way we're going to meet that goal and get to that goal. And get away from the mind-set of micromanaging and a one-shoe-fits-all type mindset.

Currently, environmentally, from environmental standpoints in the State, the Cattle Association introduced legislation this past year which attempts to unify all oversight administration and enforcement of both Federal and State environmental rules and regulations under one umbrella, that being the Idaho State Department of Agriculture. We felt in doing this it would simplify and reduce duplicity and it would be good for the Government, the association, and most of all, the environment. The bill passed, the Governor signed it. We have one more major step to work with, and that's reaching a memoranda of understanding with the Environmental Protection Agency, which will be a four-signature document between the association, Department of Environmental Quality, Department of Agriculture, and EPA. That is under negotiation right now. We hope to have a target date the first of July.

Hopefully this can be used as a model for the United States where we put all rules and regulations under one hat. The dairymen preceded us. And they did it in a different way in Idaho. They did it through strictly an MOU, whereas we've gone to legislature and MOU.

The TMDL situation was mentioned earlier. Idaho, because of court action, is probably farther ahead than a lot of people in the United States. We're having problems. Cost of compliance is going to be burdensome. It could put some agricultural people out of business. We also question some of the authority that the EPA is using. And we question whether they have statutory authority on some of the rules and regulations that they're throwing at us.

As far as private property goes, the Idaho Cattle Association has made the Major Species Act the No. 1 priority. We feel, especially as it pertains to private property, we feel it's probably one of the single most acts that could affect private property and the disposition of it.

The CARE Act, or Conservation Reinvestment Act we are totally opposed to, for one simple reason. It does not have a no-net loss of private property clause in it. Idaho is two-thirds public lands as it is, and we cannot afford to lose any more private property. And the timing could not be worse for an act such as this because of the agricultural economy. Everybody is worried about the landscape of the United States. What's the landscape of the United States going to be like 10 years from now, if $45 billion is given to the Government to spend on land acquisition? And you're going to be in a buyer's market because all the people in agriculture are

broke. And they aren't going to be willing sellers. So let's just think of our landscape 10 years from now.

We oppose executive orders, especially as it's currently relating to the Antiquities Act. Unfortunately, this probably wouldn't be an issue if we didn't have the situation that's going on right now. And we feel that it's being abused.

Taxes, we need to rescind the death tax. It's crippling our industry. Reduce the capital gains tax, and immediately impose 100 percent deduction on our health insurance premiums.

We are striving hard, and we need your help to rescind the USDA grade stamp on imported carcasses and imported live cattle. We are and are affected by fat cattle coming into the Northwest to be harvested. And they've been given the USDA grade stamp.

We're in favor of the country-of-origin labeling, whether be it mandatory or voluntary, just so the consumer knows where the product is coming from.

We're striving to get legislation through for a dealer trust, which would be similar to the packers' trust, which gives a producer priority lien on payment of their livestock. Should a dealer go bellyup or bankrupt or inability to pay, we take priority lien before banks or anybody else. It's just common sense that a producer should have that protection.

Crop and disaster insurance, we're in favor of assisting commodity groups, should it be an act of nature. We're opposed to any payments for low prices for cyclical market situations.

Thank you, and I'll stand for questions later.

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

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Mr. Goertz.

STATEMENT OF GREGORY J. GOERTZ, WHEAT AND CATTLE PRODUCER, WHEATLAND, WY

Mr. GOERTZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the House Agriculture Committee, for being so willing to take the time to listen to the agriculture producers from around the nation. I am Greg Goertz from Wheatland, Wyoming. I'm a wheat and cattle producer. My wife and I harvest 2,000 acres of wheat per year, and raise and sell 250 cows from our cow herd each year.

I serve as chairman of the Farm Service Agency State Committee in Wyoming, and am on the board of directors of the Wyoming Wheat Growers. I served as county commissioner for 4 years, and gave up politics to try and save the farm. I think I made the wrong decision 10 years ago. I should have stayed in politics.

I want to share with the committee five ideas that I've developed for our area to help agriculture through this crisis and protect family farmers until long-term solutions can be developed.

First is the lengthening of commodity loans. Potential savings of at least $167 million should be reason enough to push for a change. The carryover grain stock is projected to be very high this year and lengthening the loan period would not be building stocks. The control of some of the stocks would only be moved into producers' hands instead of the grain companies.

Congress needs to amend the FAIR Act to read, "A market assistance loan under section 131 shall have a term of 30, plus inter

est for the first 9 months." Commodities would remain in control of the producers and not have to move into the pipeline, causing lower prices.

Basis levels have increased because terminals have more commodities on hand than they can get sold. The terminals must pay interest and have storage costs while holding commodities until they can find a market to get rid of them. They cover the cost by increasing basis levels and the producer ends up covering this cost through lower prices.

The producer should be given a marketing tool to store commodities and keep control of it. If prices rose over the long period, the producer wouldn't be eligible for market gain on the outstanding loan, and would also be required to pay interest for the first 9 months.

If 50 percent of the current wheat, corn, and soybean loans remained in effect and didn't need a market gain, it would save the Federal Government an estimated $277 million, plus they would have to pay the interest for a savings to the Government of $84 million, for a total of $362 million.

Second item is the Environmental Quality Incentive Program or EQIP. There is lack of adequate funding in the present EQIP program and we need single-year contracts. We need to be allowed to use slippage of funds from year to year. And we need local control. The locally elected county committees and conservation district boards know what conservation is needed in their areas, so give them more control over conservation programs. We also need to eliminate cost share bidding.

The third item is crop insurance. I purchased crop revenue coverage insurance to reduce our risk. When we purchased the policy in September, our local price was 50 cents under Kansas City, which is a little larger than it normally was. When the harvest price or CRC was established, my local price was 90 cents under Kansas City. We weren't covered for this additional 40 cents per bushel loss, so the insurance didn't do us any good. The harvest price for CRC coverage should be based on posted county prices instead of the future's market prices.

Fourth item is Loan Differential Payments or LDPs. State FSA committees need more say in setting of loan differentials to establish LDP rates. The system is flawed when the price of corn in a large area is the same when LDP rates vary by 20 cents per bushel or more between counties.

Fifth item is the Conservation Reserve Program, CRP. With time, I have seen the damage this program has done to our community. Whole farms are now being bid into CRP and the equipment sold and the operator retires. CRP wasn't designed to be a retirement or a set-aside program. That is what it's turned into. This hurts local communities and takes away the opportunities for young farmers to start and expand their operations. This could be solved by only allowing 25 percent of any farm to be enrolled in CRP. How much of the world's market share have we lost by cutting production?

In conclusion, these imposed changes won't solve the problems completely. My local loan rate is $2.30 per bushel. And in a 58-cent NAFTA payment and a 58-cent market loss payment, if we get it,

for a total of $3.50. And I'm still at least a dollar under the cost of production. $3.50 per bushel is 75 cents less than I was guaranteed under the old program 10 years ago. Certainly my costs have gone up.

I need projections from basis changes in my local price. Two issues I have raised, lengthening market loans and a change in the pricing of CRC insurance would help me do this. How did the price difference between my farm in Kansas City go from 50 cents to 90 cents in less than 2 years? Transportation and storage costs couldn't have increased that quickly.

Give me the tools to hold a crop until there is a demand for it. Market loss payments are appreciated and have allowed many producers to remain in operation for another year. But we can't use them in next year's cash flow with any reliability. Most operations are having a very difficult time cash flowing, so we need to know if we can expect cash payments or an increase in price.

Agriculture producers want to produce and feed the world. In order for us to accomplish this, we need an equitable price for our commodities. We are the world's best conservationists and efficient producers, so save our rural communities and allow us to do what we do best and produce an equitable crop for an equitable price. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman.

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

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Mrs. Hartley from Nyssa.

STATEMENT OF JUNE S. HARTLEY, ONION, WHEAT, CORN PRODUCER, NYSSA, OR

Mrs. HARTLEY. Good morning. Distinguished members of the committee and ladies and gentlemen, I am very appreciative of the opportunity to be here today. And I'd like to thank my Congressman, Greg Walden, for arranging this.

I'm dressed in black today because I am mourning. I am mourning the imminent death of the American family farm. I am here as a representative of my own family farm and many of my neighbors in Malheur County. Since people found out that I was going to be here today, I have been inundated with phone calls and with ideas of things that I must tell you in the 5 minutes that I have for you. So I'll just kind of do the best I can to give you all those ideas.

First, I want to say that almost everything I have to say has already been said this morning, so I'll just try to say it in a little different way. I'll tell you a little story about what happened to my husband and I at a breakfast table. I had served him some grapefruit. And it was rather small, canned grapefruit, but it was sweet, quite tasty. And he said, "June, where did this grapefruit come from?" I looked on the can and it said "Grown, produced in Israel." Well, I had cooked him some cut oats and I thought surely oats were safe. But my curiosity was aroused. I looked on this box and I found, "Grown and produced in Ireland." Well, now I'm really curious and so I go to the orange juice bottle and I see that the orange juice that we're having is reconstituted from juice from Brazil. So then I look at the bacon and I find that it was grown, produced, hogs from Canada. My husband and I just came unglued. Our entire breakfast came from foreign soil.