1990 Farm Bill Forum 



Proceedings 



policy was perhaps the most important policy 

 change for the cattle industry included in the 

 1985 act. 



Beef Promotion: The beef check-off has helped 

 the cattle industry tell the story of how nutri- 

 ent-rich beef benefits the diet, as well as bolsters 

 demand. The check-off was approved by an 

 overwhelming majority of cattlemen and we in 

 the industry thank Congress for giving us the 

 oppHDrtunity to prove the merits of a program 

 funded by the producer. 



Conservation Reserve: Thirty million acres 

 have been enrolled for the conscr\'ation pro- 

 gram. The probability of haying and grazing 

 during the term of the CRP control was a 

 prudent decision. Although Secretary Yeutter 

 has reNised the previous policy, we believe the 

 drought relief measures were warranted. 



Haying and Grazing on Set-Aside Acres: The 

 new law passed in 1987 is a fair compromise 

 that recognizes regional differences. In Mon- 

 tana, where a semi-arid climate influences set- 

 aside acres, the debate over haying and grazing 

 set-aside was not as intense as in other areas of 

 the United States. We hope this will end the 

 contentious debate on haying and grazing. 



Dairy: The Dairy Termination Program was a 

 disaster for the cattle industry. Mismanagement 

 by the USD A- Agriculture Stabilization and 

 Conservation Service in a hastily conceived 

 program precipitated a law suit by cattlemen 

 which forced USDA to follow an orderly 

 marketing order previously outlined by Con- 

 gress. It was a sad day for MSGA to bring suit 

 against USDA. MSGA strongly believes dairy 

 termination programs are counter-productive 

 and should not be utilized in the future. Instead 

 we should continue to use the National Milk 

 Producers task force report which stated "that if 

 milk supplies exceed demand by certain levels, 

 the costs of the resulting excess removals be 

 paid by those producers whose marketing 

 exceed their allotted share of market require- 

 ments." 



Clear Title: The clear title provisions of the 

 1985 Farm Act provided that no producer be 

 forced to pay twice for products they buy. This 



MoaUna CiiapUp, toB and Watsr CoRtarvaUoo SocletY 



24 



legislation was fully supported by MSGA. The 

 single factor which led to the success of the 1985 

 Farm Bill was the fact that there were no major 

 changes mid-term, giving the producer time to 

 adjust their particular operation to the program. 



The Montana Stockgrowers Association will be 

 involved with the National Cattlemen's Asso- 

 ciation Agricultural Policy Committee in the 

 development of the 1990 Farm Bill. We will 

 work diligently with other agriculture groups 

 to develop consensus and coalitions in order to 

 create a farm bill we can all be proud of. 



The new grain p>olicy idea of triple base market- 

 ing is being aired as a way to pro%ide program 

 grain producers with flexibility in their planting 

 decisions. Some propjonents of the triple base 

 plan would allow non-program crops to be 

 grown on the op>eration's base. Would it be fair 

 to allow nonprogram crops to be planted on 

 protected program crop base acres? How would 

 it affect producers who do not farm the govern- 

 ment program? Grain policy, in any event, 

 should continue to use market focus for price 

 discovery. 



Dairy p)olicy will continue to concern cattlemen. 

 The fear in the cattle industry is that if milk 

 surpluses grow to an unreasonable amount, the 

 government will again have to slaughter cows 

 to remove the surplus. As I mentioned earlier in 

 this testimony, if milk supplies exceed demand 

 by certain levels, the cost of the resulting excess 

 removal should be paid by those producers 

 whose marketing exceeds their allocated share 

 of market requirements. Montana Stockgrowers 

 cannot idly stand by and allow dairy policy to 

 be implemented that encourages over-produc- 

 tion. 



The Conservation Title of the 1990 Farm Bill 

 may prove to be the most controversial aspect 

 of the bill in the sense that forces outside of 

 agriculture will have too much input into the 

 title. We cattlemen are all concerned about the 

 environment, but MSGA questions the methods 

 used to address the situation. We believe it is 

 imperative to closely gucird private property 

 rights as Congress writes environmental laws. 

 Ranchers will depend on both the Senate and 

 House Agricultural Committees to defend and 

 protect private property. 



August 28, 1888 



