1990 Farm Bill Forum 



Proceedings 



This brings up the question of what "reasonable 

 supplies" are. Currently, USDA is projecting 

 ending wheat stocks next May 31 at 474 million 

 bushels. Secretary Yeutter has been quoted as 

 saying wheat stocks are "dangerously low" and 

 the USDA is in a panic looking at different 

 means of increasing wheat plantings next year. 

 We do not believe that stocks in the 500 million 

 bushel range are unreasonably low. We arc not 

 in danger of running out of wheat. The United 

 States does not need to feel responsible for 

 storing the world grain surplus. 



While MGGA and all farmers look forward to a 

 time when prices and income are created by the 

 market place, that, in large, is not happening 

 now. We do not believe that we need to give 

 anything away at this time. Unless and until 

 other countries are willing to take responsible 

 action to reduce ag subsidies, we need to 

 maintain and utilize all the tools we have to 

 force them to the bargaining table. 



Target prices should not be lowered. Rather, the 

 ARP and the EEP should be used to minimize 

 deficiency payments and the resulting budget 

 exposure. 



Export Enhancement Program: The EEP cannot 

 be overemphasized. As long as the United 

 States is fighting a subsidy war, we must 

 continue an aggressive expxjrt sales and market 

 development program. EEP has proven to be 

 very effective in expanding sales and bringing 

 our competitors to the bargaining table. 



Planting Flexibility: One of the major changes 

 needed in ag policy is flexibility. Current pro- 

 grams have made base acres an extremely 

 valuable asset. Producers do not necessarily 

 raise their commodities because it makes 

 economic sense, but because they have to in 

 order to maintain base acres. We need to be able 

 to shift acreage to other program crops that are 

 in short supply. More importantly, we need to 

 be able to shift to non-program crops that are in 

 short supply or in the process of expanding 

 markets. We need greater freedom to respond 

 to market signals. 



This flexibility could be achieved by either 

 using a Normal Crop Acreage (NCA) base or by 

 allowing producers to plant alternate crops on 



base acres without the danger of losing base 

 acres. We do not favor the "triple-base" con- 

 cept. It is simply a means of cutting target 

 prices. 



Long-term Set- Aside: One of the new concepts 

 that MGGA would like to examine is that of a 

 long-term set-aside. There are many cases 

 where it would be helpful for a producer to be 

 able to set-aside the same field or acreage for 

 several years. Currently, that is not p>ossible. In 

 order to be eligible for conser\ing use (CU), 

 ground must be planted to a program crop in 

 two of the last five years. 



Montana has a growing saline seep problem. If 

 a producer could set-aside land that is causing a 

 saline seep problem for five years and have that 

 qualify for CU, he may be able to take steps to 

 cure the problem. Saline seep is a major cause of 

 water quality problems in Montana and this 

 concept could go a long way in curbing it. It 

 could also be helpful in cases where noxious 

 weeds or other land management conditions 

 are a problem. We would suggest a maximum 

 of five years and 5 percent of base for the long- 

 term set-aside. We are not looking for an 

 expanded CRP program, but rather a set-aside 

 that will allow us to manage some of our 

 cultural and environmental problems. 



Federal Crop Insurance Program: The MGGA 

 urges Congress to take a good look at the 

 Federal Crop Insurance Program. We need to 

 improve this system so that it covers all crops in 

 a way that it is not necessary to write disaster 

 legislation each year. Although disaster legisla- 

 tion these past two years has been extremely 

 helpful to U.S. farmers, we need to know before 

 we plant the degree to which we can protect 

 our investments. 



We urge the Congress to take time to carefully 

 assess the FCIC program and incorporate 

 constructive improvements into the 1990 Farm 

 Bill. We do not want to be "bailed out" each 

 time it rains too little or too much, but we do 

 want to be able to ensure our investments on all 

 crops against weather extremes. 



Paperwork Reduction: The paperwork re- 

 quired by ASCS and CCC is excessive and cum- 

 bersome and we encourage Congress to take a 



16 



Montani Chaptar, Son and Water Contervadoa Society 



Augutt28, 1889 



