U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

38–704 PDF 2007

S. HRG. 110–184

2007 FARM BILL: EXPANDING MONTANA’S

AGRICULTURAL OPPORTUNITIES

FIELD HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, 

NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

JULY 2, 2007

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.agriculture.senate.gov 

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY

TOM HARKIN, Iowa, Chairman 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont 

KENT CONRAD, North Dakota 

MAX BAUCUS, Montana 

BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas 

DEBBIE A. STABENOW, Michigan 

E. BENJAMIN NELSON, Nebraska 

KEN SALAZAR, Colorado 

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio 

ROBERT P. CASEY, Jr., Pennsylvania 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia 

RICHARD G. LUGAR, Indiana 

THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi 

MITCH MCCONNELL, Kentucky 

PAT ROBERTS, Kansas 

LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina 

NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota 

MICHEAL D. CRAPO, Idaho 

JOHN THUNE, South Dakota 

CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa

MARK HALVERSON, Majority Staff Director 

JESSICA L. WILLIAMS, Chief Clerk 

MARTHA SCOTT POINDEXTER, Minority Staff Director 

VERNIE HUBERT, Minority General Counsel 

(II) 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

FIELD HEARING(S):

2007 Farm Bill: Expanding Montana’s Agricultural Opportunities .................... 1

Monday, July 2, 2007

STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY SENATORS 

Baucus, Hon. Max, a U.S. Senator from Montana ................................................ 2

Tester, Hon. Jon, a U.S. Senator from Montana ................................................... 5

Panel I 

Arganbright, Darin, President, Montana Grain Growers Association, Carter, 

Montana ................................................................................................................ 10

Gray, Colette, Great Falls Opportunities, Inc., Great Falls, Montana ............... 12

Merrill, Alan, President, Montana Farmers Union, Great Falls, Montana ........ 9

Quinn, Robert, Montana Organic Association, Polson, Montana ........................ 6

Panel II 

DeBruycker, Brett, President, Montana Cattlemen’s Association, Dutton, 

Montana ................................................................................................................ 23

Hinnaland, Dave, Montana Wool Growers Association, Circle, Montana ........... 21

Roth, Steve, President, Montana Stockgrowers Association, Big Sandy, Montana ....................................................................................................................... 22

Taber, Jim, Chairman, Young Farmers and Ranchers, Montana Farm Bureau, 

Shawmut, Montana .............................................................................................. 19

APPENDIX 

DOCUMENT(S) SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD: 

Alternative Energy Resources Organization, prepared statement ...................... 48

Chester Irrigation Project, prepared statement .................................................... 49

Ducks Unlimited National Priorities for the 2007 Farm Bill .............................. 51

Dutton State Bank, prepared statement ............................................................... 52

Montana Association of Conservation Districts, prepared statements ............... 54

Montana Bankers Association, prepared statement ............................................. 55

Montana Grain Growers Association, prepared statement .................................. 56

Montana Pork Producers Council, prepared statement ....................................... 58

Montana Salinity Control Association, prepared statement ................................ 61

Montana Women Involved in Farm Economics, prepared statement ................. 65

National Center for Appropriate Technology, prepared statement ..................... 69

National Congress of American Indians, prepared statement ............................. 70

Sage Creek Watershed Alliance, prepared statement .......................................... 92

Two Rivers Economic Growth, prepared statement .............................................. 95

USA Dry Pea & Lentil Council, prepared statement ........................................... 98

Various farmers and citizens from Montana, prepared statements .................... 104

(1)

2007 FARM BILL: EXPANDING MONTANA’S 

AGRICULTURAL OPPORTUNITIES 

Monday, July 2, 2007

UNITED STATES SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, 

NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY, 

Great Falls, MT 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:00 a.m., in the 

Great Falls Civic Center, Hon. Max Baucus, presiding. 

Present or submitting a statement: Senators Baucus and Tester. 

Senator BAUCUS. The Senate Agriculture Committee hearing will 

come to order. 

We are very honored to have the second of the Committee’s two 

field hearings, the second hearing here in Montana, the only other 

State that has two. 

Before I begin, I am just very honored to introduce just a wonderful man. He is a farmer in his own right. He is very popular. 

I do not know another governor in our country who is more popular 

than ours. So let us give a big round of applause to our governor, 

Governor Schweitzer. 

[Applause.] 

Governor SCHWEITZER. I want to welcome two great United 

States Senators back to Montana. Montana is well served having 

Max—I do not know how these things work in Washington, DC, 

but apparently the Finance Committee is the Committee that actually writes the checks. Max is Chair of the Finance Committee. So 

Montana is well-served. 

Having Max on the Finance Committee and the Agriculture 

Committee is very important and it shows. Because having this 

hearing in Montana, giving you producers an opportunity to talk 

about what we need in the next farm bill. 

And having Jon Tester and Max Baucus, both of them from an 

agricultural background here in Montana, both knowing farming 

and ranching, we have never been better served in the United 

States Senate. 

That being said, we have got some great challenges, as you know. 

In the livestock industry we have concerns about trade issues, 

breaking down some of those walls, making sure that we are protecting the health of our livestock in Montana. Obviously we have 

concerns because in Montana we have led the Nation in finding 

new ways of growing crops. Leading in pulse crops, for example. 

And finding ways of producing organic crops so that we can add 

more value to the crops that we are producing. 

2

Montana, we were just with a group of buyers from Taiwan. We 

were just in Kalispell with the Wheat Associates. And we are recognized, not just in this country but around the world, as the highest quality wheat anywhere. 

Now that does not come just by standing still. That comes because we have had a great breeding program that has concentrated 

on high quality, high gluten wheat. So that we can export to these 

markets all over the world. 

Now here is the challenge. The Administration says that we are 

going to produce 35 billion gallons of biofuels. That is the goal. And 

I have done a little math and I know that if we converted all of 

the acres of wheat, all of the acres of corn, and all of the acres of 

soybeans that we export currently, we may get to 35 billion gallons. 

So the only way you get to that level would be the so-called cellulosic ethanol. I do not know how many years we are from that, 

10, 12, 15. But when we get there, then it allows for opportunities 

in native grass, CRP, wheat straw, barley straw, wood chips. All 

of those are great opportunities. 

And I understand that this farm bill is going to have a provision 

to invest a great deal of money in developing cellulosic ethanol. 

So once again, it is great to see—as I look around the room, we 

were talking before, seeing so many good friends from every corner 

of Montana. And not just every corner geographically, but seeing 

the livestock industry, the wool growers, the grain growers, the 

pulse growers, the organic growers, and having every sector of 

Montana’s agricultural community here helping these two United 

States Senators develop farm policy that will be Montana’s farm 

policy. 

As you know, there is competing interests. Soybean farmers want 

one thing, the corn farmers want something else. And cotton always needs more than they have coming. 

[Laughter.] 

Governor SCHWEITZER. We do not have any cotton farmers. We 

are okay with that, aren’t we? 

[Laughter.] 

Governor SCHWEITZER. So having two powerful United States 

Senators going to bat for the interests of wheat and barley and 

grain growers, pulse growers, livestock industry, Montana has 

never been better served. 

And thank you for bringing this hearing to Montana. I suppose 

I should welcome Senator Harkin’s staff here who is the—I guess 

he is the Chair of the Agricultural Committee. 

Senator BAUCUS. He is. 

Governor SCHWEITZER. He is a good friend and he will be watching out for Montana’s interests, because Max is good friends with 

him. 

Thank you very much, and welcome everybody. 

Senator BAUCUS. Thank you, Governor, very, very much. Appreciate it. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MAX BAUCUS, A U.S. SENATOR FROM 

MONTANA 

Senator BAUCUS. Good morning everybody. I want to welcome all 

of you to today’s Agriculture Committee hearing on the farm bill. 

3

Today’s hearing is likely to be the final hearing before the next 

farm bill is written. There were a lot of hearings in Washington, 

DC and several around the country. This is probably going to be 

the final Committee hearing. 

I am pleased to announce that Montana, as I mentioned earlier, 

was one of only two States to host two farm bill hearings. 

It is also great to have with us Jon Tester. Senator Tester—and 

I do not think anybody in the Senate has more firsthand knowledge 

of agriculture than does Jon Tester, and I very much appreciate 

him joining us. 

I want to give special thanks to the witnesses that are here 

today. You represent Montana’s farmers, ranchers, and nutrition 

experts. I look forward to your testimony very much. Your testimony will be very important to members of this Committee and we 

thank you for taking the time and the effort to give it. 

I also want to thank everybody who has taken time to come here 

today. You have very busy schedules. You have a lot to do. We 

thank you very much for your participation. 

Before we get started here, I wanted to take a moment to reflect 

on the passing of a great Montanan. Everyone here today knew 

Nancy Peterson. She was raised just north of here, on the edge of 

our State’s golden triangle. For more than 30 years Nancy dedicated herself to agriculture in Montana, working 2,500 acres North 

of Havre, serving as an advocate to so many Ag organizations, including the Grain Growers and the Farmers Union, serving as 

chair of the FSA State Committee with Brian Schweitzer and 

Bruce Nelson, and heading up the Montana Department of Agriculture. 

Nancy brought her love for the land and the people who work it 

into everything she did. We will miss Nancy very, very much. Let 

us give a moment of silence for Nancy Peterson. 

Senator BAUCUS. Thank you very much. 

President Eisenhower once remarked that ’Farming looks mighty 

easy when your plow is a pencil and you are 1,000 miles away from 

the cornfield.’ That is a direct quote from President Eisenhower. He 

was responding to critics of his program to provide price supports 

for struggling farmers during the post-war period. Growing up in 

a farm community in Kansas, Eisenhower appreciated the vital and 

difficult work farmers do to keep food on America’s table. 

Today we hear similar criticism on the front pages of Eastern 

newspapers. Negative articles frequently refer to protectionist policies intended to shield farmers and ranchers from competition and 

to raise consumer prices. The articles waiver between portraying 

farmers and ranchers in completely opposite ways, either the corporate businessman leaching off the Government dole, or the hayseed farmer unable to compete without a handout. 

These portrayals are disappointing to me and disheartening to 

rural America. I know that in this high-tech age it is tempting to 

downplay the importance of those who put food on our table and 

clothes on our back, but the better part of history should teach us 

to avoid that temptation. 

One common attack on U.S. farm policy is it is no longer for the 

family farm and ranch but rather has become corporate welfare. 

But even the most basic research quickly uncovers that nearly all 

4

producers in America are family farms and ranches, not corporations and conglomerates. And it is often overlooked that American 

consumers today spend a lower percentage of their disposable income on food than do consumers elsewhere around the world. 

In fact, American families are the only families in the world who 

spend less than 10 percent of their disposal income on food. The 

only families in the world. 

Clearly, many of these critics would benefit from some time in 

a wheat field outside of Carter or a ranch in the Bitterroot. 

As everyone knows, agriculture is vital to Montana’s economy 

and heritage. It is the financial engine that drives our State’s economy. One in five Montanans works in agriculture or a related field. 

Each year Montana ranchers and farmers produce $2 billion of the 

finest and highest quality agriculture goods produced anywhere in 

the world. Our State ranks first nationally in the production of certified organic wheat, third in wheat and barley, in the top six in 

beef, lamb, and honey. 

Because agriculture is so important to Montana, it is important 

for the Senate Agriculture Committee to hear directly from Montana’s farmers and ranchers, not just the echo chamber in Washington, DC and one-sided news reports. 

Things have changed dramatically since we wrote the last farm 

bill. This farm bill will be unlike any in the recent past. There are 

more competing interests and the budget is tighter than ever. Difficult choices will be inevitable. The upcoming farm bill must be 

well thought out and tailored to fit the changing needs of America’s 

and Montana’s farmers and ranchers. 

Today we have a distinguished panel of witnesses to help us answer the tough agriculture policy questions. Those answers will 

help guide this Committee as it looks to reauthorize the farm bill. 

The first panel will discuss the commodity, conservation and nutrition titles. As we write the upcoming farm bill, the commodity 

title could be the most difficult. I look forward to hearing from 

Montana producers on the best way to provide a safety net for agriculture. 

Often overlooked, the nutrition title contains over half of the 

farm bill spending. It is important that these programs work well 

for Montana’s families. 

The second panel will discuss livestock issues and I am especially 

interested in hearing the panel’s views on country of origin labeling, interstate shipment of meat, and animal ID. 

Once again, I am glad we have the wide range of our agriculture 

community represented here today. I look forward to hearing your 

testimony. I very much value your input to provide guidance as we 

work with the Agriculture Committee on the next farm bill. 

I would now like to introduce a person we are very proud of both 

here in Montana, especially those of us close to Chester, and also 

in Washington, DC who are getting to know Jon very well. We are 

very honored to have as a part of this hearing somebody who really 

knows agriculture very, very well and who is cutting a wide swath 

in Washington, DC That is Jon Tester. 

5

STATEMENT OF HON. JON TESTER, A U.S. SENATOR FROM 

MONTANA 

Senator TESTER. Thank you, Max. 

First of all, I want to thank you for all the work that you have 

done in setting this hearing up and all of the leadership you provide in Washington, DC on a myriad of issues, including agriculture policy. 

I also want to welcome the folks from Senator Harkin’s office and 

Senator Chambliss’ office. I appreciate your bosses sending you to 

Montana to hear from the good folks in the agriculture community 

here in Montana. 

I also want to thank the folks who have come here to testify and 

those of you who have come to listen. It is important that the policies that we develop in Washington, DC really work for Montanans 

and for this country. And it is through hearings like this one that 

we get the feedback that we need to get a farm bill that works. 

And it is important to know that those of you folks that are not 

on the panel, we have staff members here and we are here. So you 

should have the opportunity, at least to a certain extent, to visit 

with us about certain issues that you care deeply about, even if it 

is not covered on the panel. And if not, then you can drop us a line 

or give us a call. 

Most of you folks know, as Max alluded to, that I am a farmer. 

We have been coming back every weekend to do policy work in the 

State of Montana, but also to help my son-in-law and daughter 

take over the family farm. It is indeed a challenge, as you all know. 

My grandparents, as I suspect many of yours, came to this country 

when the grass was tall and created communities. I am very, very 

thankful that my kids are able to come back to the farm. It is 

something that I know my grandfather and grandmother would be 

very, very proud of. 

But I have also seen firsthand how difficult it is for the next generation to move onto the land. If my wife and I would not have had 

the support from our parents and grandparents, we would not have 

been able to start. And I think that is even more true today. 

The folks in this room know how difficult an occupation that agriculture is. We are dependent on many forces that we cannot control: weather, insects, fuel prices, markets. There was a report that 

recently came out of the Washington Post back in April and it had 

some disturbing facts in it. It said that three times as much of the 

USDA rural development money went to metropolitan areas over 

50,000 people than went to poor and shrinking communities like, 

I might add, the majority of those in Eastern Montana. And that 

is really not how the program was designed to work. 

Disaster has hit Montana hard in recent years due to drought 

and storms like the one that recently hit Valley County in Eastern 

Montana. And our disaster assistance program has been inconsistent and unpredictable. 

Fuel costs have created incredible hardship, not only on the price 

of gas and diesel, but also on the prices of chemicals and fertilizers. 

Not to mention that Montanans get doubly hard when hit with the 

fact that we have to pay freight both ways. Which could lead me 

to a discussion on freight rates, but that is probably for another 

hearing and another time. 

6

Even with all of these potential negatives, I am actually very, 

very positive about the future of production agriculture and about 

the potential of the effectiveness of this farm bill. I think we have 

some incredible opportunities in helping America become more energy independent, by growing our energy through the production of 

oilseeds, biofuels, biolubricants, for plants for cellulosic ethanol. 

And who would have ever thought that wind would have been an 

asset, wind for electrical production? 

I think big markets can open up to put more money in producers’ 

pockets. Conservation programs can be revamped to focus on working lands. And our safety nets can be improved to bring more consistency and reliability to the farm economy. 

We need to facilitate more open market competition, both within 

this country and globally. We need to work on programs that actually facilitate adding value to our agricultural products right here 

in Montana, as well as rural areas throughout the United States. 

We can head in the right direction for better profitability in production agriculture with this farm bill if it is constructed properly, 

with your help. That is why I am very grateful that you have 

showed up today. With your input, we can have a farm bill that 

creates opportunities for folks involved in family farm agricultural 

production, and move it forward, can maintain this country’s food 

security well into the future and promote energy independence 

through home-grown fuels. 

I really look forward to the panelists and I look forward to having a few questions when the panels are done, too. 

Thank you very much, Senator Baucus. And thank you all for attending. 

Senator BAUCUS. Thank you, Jon. I very much appreciate your 

participation in this hearing. You have got a lot to add. 

I would like to welcome our first knowledgeable and dedicated 

panel of witnesses. Our first witness is Robert Quinn representing 

the Montana Organic Association. 

He will be followed by Alan Merrill who is President, Montana 

Farmers Union. 

Third is Darin Arganbright, President, Grain Growers. 

And also, the fourth witness on the panel is Ms. Colette Gray. 

She is the community advocate for the Great Falls Opportunities, 

Inc. 

Thank you all very much. Your statements will all be automatically included in the record. However long they are, they will be 

included. I would encourage you to limit your remarks to about five 

minutes. Let’s go down the line there and start with you, Bob, and 

then we will take it from there. Then I will have some questions, 

Jon will have some questions. 

Basically just tell it like it is, do not pull any punches. Let us 

know what you think. This day is gone after tomorrow. So all the 

very best. 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT QUINN, MONTANA ORGANIC 

ASSOCIATION, POLSON, MONTANA 

Mr. QUINN. Thank you very much, Senator. 

7

My name is Bob Quinn. I live and work on a 2,800 acre fourth 

generation organic family farm southeast of Big Sandy in North 

Central Montana. 

Today I am representing the Montana Organic Association, 

which has a membership of over 200 farmers, consisting of the vast 

majority of organic farmers in the State. I thank the Committee 

very much for the opportunity to be here, the first time that the 

organic segment really has been invited to participate and testify, 

and we very much appreciate that. 

Senator BAUCUS. Jon might have something to do with that. 

Mr. QUINN. Thank you, Jon. 

As you know, for the past several years, organic agriculture has 

been the fastest growing and the most profitable segment of agriculture in the Nation. Our farm has been 100 percent organic for 

over 20 years now. Besides grains, we grow oil seeds to fuel our 

farm. In fact, it is my goal to be 100 percent fuel self-sufficient in 

two more years, not only for diesel but also for lubricants. We are 

heading down that road. 

We also grow dry land potatoes and dry land squash for local 

markets. This year we are experimenting with tomatoes and onions 

on a saline seep to see if we can turn that liability into an asset. 

One of our goals is to reduce our dependence on Government 

support programs by growing high value crops with specific health 

benefits. As you probably know, Montana—and we have already 

heard this—leads the Nation in the number of acres of organic 

wheat production. Organic is no longer a niche but is now being 

studied or introduced by most of the largest food handlers and 

processors in the Nation. 

With that said, you should also know that the demand for organic crops now exceeds the supply, to the point that this increasing demand is drawing supply from outside of our country. This is 

sending money out of the country that could be going into the farmers’ pockets right here in our own Nation. 

What is really fueling this demand? And why are our farmers not 

meeting it? There are both negative and positive forces driving demand for organic products, I believe. On the negative side, there 

is the concerns of pesticide residues in our food and the growing 

concerns about allergies and other health problems related to GMO 

foods. 

On the positive side is the noticeably better flavor of organic 

foods. And now research is clearly documenting the presence of significantly higher levels of anti-oxidants in these foods, which contribute to better health. 

As far as production goes, I can tell you from my own experience 

that organic production is more profitable than conventional agricultural production. I believe this new possibility could revitalize 

rural Montana and rural America and bring back youths to the 

farms and the country who now leave because they see no hope and 

no opportunity in rural America and in rural Montana. 

If organic agriculture holds so much promise, then why is there 

not more conversion to it in Montana and surrounding States? I 

think the major problem is lack of information and technical support. 

8

This brings me to the first and biggest need I see for organic producers that could be addressed in this farm bill, and that is a need 

for research where the new focus is on sustainable organic cropping 

systems, locally produced biofuels, and study of functional foods 

which could replace expensive drugs. 

Some States, such as Minnesota, have established an organic research farm to study some of these questions. Why can’t we do that 

throughout the country with a national initiative? Farmers, both 

organic and conventional, could be taught how to substitute green 

manures best suited for their region for commercial fertilizer. 

If food were considered our medicine and medicine were our food, 

then some of the health care dollars could be diverted to food, the 

return to the farmer could be increased to the point where there 

would be less dependence on Government support programs and 

they could eventually be eliminated. 

Countless millions have been spent to develop GMO crops which 

most of our customers in Asia and Europe do not want because of 

their health concerns. And recent research has started to substantiate that concern. Why not put at least as much research dollars 

into the study of functional foods, organic and locally grown, which 

have a growing demand, not only here but throughout the country. 

My second concern is crop insurance. Currently, organic producers pay a 5 percent penalty just because they are organic. I feel 

it is time that that penalty be dropped. 

There is also a crying need for data collection to produce actuary 

tables. And since organic crops are sold at higher prices than conventional crops, why can’s we have insurance systems similar to 

that that are put together for malt barley? 

The third concern is the cost of transition from conventional to 

organic production, which takes three to five years. The EQIP program could help with that. 

And last is the concern for the cost of certification itself. This 

particularly is problematic for small vegetables growers. The cost 

of certification in Montana has gone from $90 to over $600 now 

that the Federal rules are in place. For those who are doing small 

vegetables who have to be certified if their gross sales are over 

$5,000, that is problematic. 

In conclusion, in two days we will be celebrating, once again, our 

Independence Day. I think it is time for farmers to declare independence, too, independence from high cost of foreign and domestic 

fuel, independence from high-priced fertilizer, independence from 

foreign food imports. And finally, independence from large Government support programs. 

These days we hear a lot of talk about homeland security. I am 

here to tell you that locally produced fuel, fertilizer and fuel is 

homeland security and we just ask the Committee for their help in 

accomplishing those goals for agriculture today. 

Thank you, very much. 

Senator BAUCUS. Thank you very much, Robert. 

Alan, you are up. 

9

STATEMENT OF ALAN MERRILL, PRESIDENT, MONTANA 

FARMERS UNION, GREAT FALLS, MONTANA 

Mr. MERRILL. Thank you, Senator Baucus, Senator Tester, for 

being here. I am the Montana Farmers Union President, Alan Merrill, from Big Sandy. I am, too, following in right behind Bob here 

and Senator Tester, I am an organic farmer and I have been at it 

for about nine years. 

One of the best things that has happened in the last couple of 

months is that my son, Nathan, has decided to come back and 

farm, which is a good thing. That is a young person coming back 

to farm. 

I farm with wife, Laurie. And my daughter is in Iraq right now. 

She is serving as military intelligence just south of Baghdad, so 

that is where she is. It is kind of interesting. 

In a nutshell, Montana Farmers Union believes that if the next 

farm bill includes the following provisions that farmers, ranchers 

and rural communities will be a part of an economic climate that 

will permit family-based agriculture to flourish: a farm income 

safety net that includes counter-cyclical payments indexed to the 

cost of production to support family farmers during periods of low 

commodity prices. Full funding for the Conservation Security Program and increases in the funding for the Natural Resources Conservation Service. A strong nutrition title to help provide basic food 

and nutrition needs for all citizens in need. A renewable energy 

title that makes energy independence a national priority. One that 

puts farmer, rancher and community ownership of renewable energy first, one that encourages value-added projects including ethanol, biodiesel, and farmer and commodity-owned wind energy. 

And finally, in that area, we need a permanent disaster program, 

funded from the general treasury, not taking off from something 

else that is already in the farm bill. That is what really hurts. 

I talked to a couple of FSA offices. They all have records. Since 

1999 they have kept records for all farmers and ranchers. And so 

they have the records and they say it would be very simple to do 

a permanent disaster, built right in. Well, not simple, but kind of 

simple. 

Senator BAUCUS. Simple enough. 

Mr. MERRILL. Fuels from farm, renewable energy from farm-generated operations is one of the most exciting opportunities to happen in farm country lately. Here in Montana, we are enthusiastic 

about renewable energy opportunities, particularly wind and 

biofuels, as Bob just mentioned. 

In fact, right now, at this point, we are having a tour, Montana 

Farmers Union is having a tour out at one of our members, going 

through camelina. He has got a crusher going. He has got everything going. So it is a very positive, uplifting thing. 

Other things that the Farmers Union would like to support is 

going back to the permanent disaster like National Farmers 

Union—and I know you both know Tom Bias. Montana Farmers 

Union thinks permanent disaster assistance is a critical part of an 

adequate safety net and should not be conducted in its current ad 

hoc fashion. 

The counter-cyclical proposal, combined with the permanent disaster component better addresses producer needs and still leaves fiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:42 Nov 16, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\38704.TXT SAG2 PsN: SAG2
10

nancial resources available for such priorities as renewable energy, 

conservation, specialty crop, producers, rural development, and research. 

Here is the neat thing: Montana Farmers Union, along with National Farmers Union, I would like to take a moment to discuss 

carbon credits and the Carbon Credit Trading Program, on the 

CCX, there is a growing public concern about global climate 

change. In response to that, the program is a voluntary private sector approach to conservation that allows producers to earn income 

in the carbon credit market for storing carbon in their soil through 

no till production, forestry, and pasture. National Farmers Union 

acts as the aggregator of the credits for our members and the credits are then traded on the Chicago Climate Exchange. 

One thing I know that Steve Roth will get into it, but Montana 

Farmers Union emphatically wants to get COOL going. We have to 

get it going. I am an organic farmer. Senator Tester and Bob Quinn 

right here will tell you how many records we have to keep. We 

have to keep them to be organic. Ranchers could do the same thing. 

So with that said, one thing that I really would like to stress, 

and I have talked to you both, Senator Baucus and Senator Tester, 

is that we have to get together as farm organizations. If we do not, 

if we are separated in everything else, you quoted that to me in 

your office on a fly-in March. You said that. We have to be together, on the same page. 

So with that said, thanks a lot. 

Senator BAUCUS. Thanks, Alan, very much. 

Darin. 

STATEMENT OF DARIN ARGANBRIGHT, PRESIDENT, MONTANA 

GRAIN GROWERS ASSOCIATION, CARTER, MONTANA 

Mr. ARGANBRIGHT. Thank you, Senator Baucus and Senator Tester. 

For the record, my name is Darin Arganbright. I am a third generation wheat and barley grower from Carter, Montana. And I currently serve as President of the Montana Grain Growers Association. 

Thank you for the opportunity to be here today to talk about the 

challenges facing Montana’s wheat and barley producers. 

I would like to outline some of the major issues facing Montana’s 

wheat and barley industry and what Federal farm policy can do to 

better help Montana producers withstand the challenges to their 

industry. 

In particular, I would like to talk about the 2007 farm bill and 

outline some of the areas where Title I Federal farm bill spending 

would best benefit Montana producers. 

The Montana Grain Growers Association realizes that Montana’s 

wheat and barley industry is suffering from both lower net returns 

and lower levels of support than other program crops. Federal farm 

policy that provides an equitable safety net for wheat growers will 

be key to the future of Montana’s wheat and barley industry. 

Over the term of the 2002 Farm Bill, our membership has seen 

some price increases for their world-class products, particularly in 

the last 12 months. While this has been very good news for growers, this increase has not kept pace with the extraordinary increase 

11

in the cost of inputs we have seen over the past four years. These 

input costs and the inability to pass them along are a tremendous 

threat to the future of Montana’s grain industry. 

Since 2002, the last time Congress examined comprehensive Federal farm policy, a Food Ag Policy Research Institute published in 

April of 2006 estimated that fuel prices have increased 113 percent 

and fertilizer prices are up 70 percent. As of last week, those figures have probably been outdated, as they have gone much higher 

since then. 

A 2007 farm bill safety net that takes into consideration these 

increasing costs of production will be very important to Montana 

producers. 

The direction we have been given from our membership is 

straightforward and unmistakable. The highest priority for producers continues to be the direct payment. The direct payment has 

long been looked at as the primary safety net for Montana wheat 

and barley producers. The direct payment has also been instrumental in giving producers a bankable source of income from which 

their lending institutions have been able to provide operating funding during years of drought or distress. 

For many Montana producers, the direct payment has literally 

been what has put food on their family’s table when their crops 

have been small. I can speak for that. 

The direct payment also provides Montana producers the stability and flexibility to expand that with alternative crops and take 

the risks necessary to unleash the potential that our State’s producers could realize in renewable energy production. Montana producers have steadily increased the number of acres dedicated to 

crops that can be used for renewable energy, such as ethanol and 

biodiesel. This trend will only continue with the support of the direct payment. 

A healthy crop production economy also encourages value-added 

businesses to establish in Montana. The three Great Falls mills, 

Pasta Montana, as well as the ADM malt plant all increase the 

local economy in a big way and exist because of commercial crop 

production. 

MGG also believes it is possible to provide an equitable safety 

net for growers while at the same time avoiding potential challenges created by our Nation’s WTO obligations. The direct payment also accomplishes these goals. 

Montana Grain Growers have received little or no benefit from 

two key commodity program components of the 2002 Farm Bill, the 

Counter-cyclical Program and Loan Deficiency Payment Program. 

Severe weather conditions, most notably the drought in Eastern 

Montana the past two years, have led to significantly lower yields 

and even total failure. The LDP program is useless when you have 

no crop. 

In 2002 the target price for the Counter-cyclical program for 

wheat was also set considerably lower than was justified by indicated market conditions. This low target price has led to little or 

no support for wheat and barley in the form of counter-cyclical payments. 

While MGG understands the needs of producers of other crops, 

it is critically important for wheat and barley growers to be in an 

12

equitable position relative to other programs crops. Basing the target price off the relative costs of production will be critical to 

achieving equity and balance within the various program crops. 

MGG members also oppose payment limitations. While we understand this is and has been a very heated issue, we cannot support 

any type of means testing in farm policy, especially since payment 

limit proposals in the past have always targeted the direct payment more than the counter-cyclical or loan payments. This is unfair to wheat producers who rely on the direct payment. 

If we have learned anything from our dependence on foreign oil, 

it is that we should never be reliant on a foreign country for our 

Nation’s food supply. The recent alarming food scare involving Chinese flour should serve as a wake-up call to us all that preserving 

and protecting our Nation’s food supply should never be in question. 

For a very small slice of the Federal budget, less than one-half 

of 1 percent, and only 35 cents per day for every family in America, 

U.S. agricultural policy delivers substantial benefits and an unsurpassed level of food safety to consumers while at the same time 

conserving our Nation’s precious agricultural resource base. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to be here today. I look forward to working with you as the 2007 Farm Bill is being written, 

and I look forward to answering your questions. 

Senator BAUCUS. You bet, Darin. All of you have been very, very 

helpful over the months, years. I just cannot tell you how much I 

appreciate your very direct help, all of you. It just has been terrific. 

Colette. 

STATEMENT OF COLETTE GRAY, GREAT FALLS 

OPPORTUNITIES, INC., GREAT FALLS, MONTANA 

Ms. GRAY. Thank you. Senator Baucus and Senator Tester, for 

the record, my name is Colette Gray and I am community advocate 

here in Great Falls, Montana at Opportunities, Incorporated. 

I come before you today to testify on the nutrition title of the 

2007 Farm Bill and its impact on Montanans that I come in contact 

with through my job. I know that most people are here testifying 

on the producing side of agriculture but I would like to address the 

food insecurity of the Montana families on the receiving end of this 

process. 

Many people do not realize that food stamps, commodities, and 

WIC, which is Women Infants and Children, are all USDA, United 

States Department of Agriculture, programs that help reduce hunger and improve food security. These are not welfare programs. 

Families that come to our agency to pick up emergency food baskets from our emergency services department, these are usually 

working families that currently receive food stamps and WIC but 

still need help making that food stretch until the end of the month 

because of rising housing costs, heating costs, and transportation 

costs. 

The food stamp program is very important to these families but 

there are rules in the program that make it hard for families to get 

enough food stamps. For example, the current $175 credit for child 

care is usually only one-third of the amount that it takes to keep 

13

a child in a daycare setting while working one full-time or two 

part-time jobs. 

We also see many senior citizens that come for emergency food 

baskets. Usually these folks are also receiving Meals on Wheels, 

commodities every other month, and in many cases food stamps. 

Our seniors are less likely to apply for food stamps because they 

have heard that after the paperwork is done they may only receive 

$10 a month, which is indeed the minimum food stamp amount. 

Many seniors in Montana are very proud people and they still 

equate being on food stamps with being on the dole. Even though 

they struggle with low Social Security checks, high heating costs, 

and Medicare D programs with doughnut holes, they are reluctant 

to apply for food stamps. 

My agency is currently involved in a coordinate outreach program for food stamps with the Montana Food Bank Network, the 

Montana Council on Homelessness, and the Montana Department 

of Public Health and Human Services. We recognize the need that 

so many in Cascade County have to get food stamps for their family. We need your help to make this program more accessible to 

those who need it. 

I would like to share four suggestions that I would think would 

help fight hunger in our communities. They are, number one, improve the adequacy of the benefit. The average food stamp amount 

is $1.02 per person per meal and the minimum $10 monthly benefit 

is inadequate for dietary needs. 

Number two, there are barriers to access which must be reduced. 

Unnecessary paperwork or streamlining the eligibility and investing in outreach efforts would help. 

Number three, expand the eligibility by changing resource limits, 

including legal immigrants and indigent jobless people seeking employment. 

Number four, stop the erosion of the food stamp benefits which 

are shrinking in value each year by indexing the size of the food 

stamp benefit to the cost of living. 

In closing, most people are only on the food stamp program for 

an average of two years, as they work towards self-sufficiency. The 

food stamp program pumps $89,953,948 into the Montana economy, 

and that is with the current participation rate of 58 percent. This 

benefit is going directly to retail grocers and now, with the onset 

of the EBT or electronic benefit transfer card, food stamps are 

being used at farmer’s markets and support local farmers. 

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to voice my concerns 

and offer suggestions. 

Senator BAUCUS. Thank you, Colette. 

I would just like to ask, at the top, to the producing organizations a basic question about priorities. 

As you know, when this country passed the last farm bill there 

was about $80 billion over the life of the program that was not 

’paid’, that is it was added to the budget deficit. That is $80 billion 

added on to the farm bill compared with the prior period. 

This time around, the amount that the Budget Resolution of the Congress has provided for is about $20 billion, much less. To make 

matters worse, according to the Congressional Budget Resolution, 

it has to be ’paid’ for. That is, if we have $20 billion extra on top 

14

of the current so-called baseline, then we have to figure out how 

in the world we are going to find an additional $20 billion over five 

years? And part of that question is what are the priorities? 

A lot of questions here, as we balance things. One that comes to 

mind, there’s a permanent disaster assistance that comes to mind. 

There is the time/cost of production to the counter-cyclical provision 

that the organizations have mentioned. To say nothing of the nutrition title which also was included in the farm bill. 

So I was just curious what you—we need a little guidance here. 

I forgot to mention conservation, too, the conservation provisions 

that a lot of us want. 

We all want a lot and, in a certain sense, need a lot. There are 

real legitimate needs here. The question is if we have to make 

some choices here what are the most important changes do you 

think that we should make? 

I know you do not want to say it totally, because you want it all. 

I do not disagree with that. But when push comes to shove, when 

the final decisions are made not too long from now, we are going 

to have to make some choices. 

So I would just like some general guidance as to what you think 

we should do? Anybody who wants to pipe up and try to answer 

that? 

Mr. QUINN. Senator, I will pipe up. 

As I mentioned, I think research is really, really critical. And 

that could take a very small percent. If we only had 5 or 10 percent 

devoted to the future. I am really interested in long-term visionary 

goals that would help us for many years and generations set opportunities for agriculture. I realize that most of it has got real needs 

and needs to be fixed. But if we ignore looking at long-term solutions for health care and using food to solve some of that, if we can. 

Senator BAUCUS. I agree with you. To some degree some of the 

members of the Agriculture Committee are a little nervous with all 

that, although they very much support research, because when you 

authorize research dollars—this is a lot of Inside Baseball stuff 

back in Washington, DC—but the Appropriations Committee just 

takes that for other purposes. 

Mr. QUINN. There has to be some kind of stop on that. We have 

seen it in Montana. 

Senator BAUCUS. It has got to be locked-in research dollars. 

Mr. QUINN. That would be a big help. 

Senator BAUCUS. Other thoughts? 

Mr. MERRILL. I am going to throw a question back to you two 

Senators. Point of interest, and everybody has their own opinion 

about the Iraq War and everything else. But there is a lot of money 

going over there; correct? Everybody knows that. 

My question is, is that one of the stumbling blocks on the 2007 

Farm Bill? I mean, that is not an ignorant question. I am not being 

stupid. 

Senator BAUCUS. I am just chuckling because this is wonderful. 

Ordinarily at these hearings it is kind of a one-way street. Frankly, 

I am glad you are asking some questions. 

Clearly, that is a huge factor. It is huge. This country is going to be spending close to $1 trillion over 10 years in Iraq. It is a factor. It is a factor. 

15

Mr. MERRILL. That was my question. 

Senator BAUCUS. But given that, what guidance do we have from 

you? What are the priorities? What do you think they should be? 

While you are thinking about it, I will turn to Darin. 

Mr. ARGANBRIGHT. Obviously, my testimony is very favorable to 

the direct payment for a variety of reasons. It is clear that we do 

have this $20 billion deficit because we did come in under budget 

with the 2002 Farm Bill. I do not know the exact number, but I 

would be willing to bet that wheat shared a big part of that. And 

we would like to see that inequity addressed. 

However it is done, I think our preference would either be a 

higher direct payment or more of a good target price for the 

Counter-cyclical Program. 

Senator BAUCUS. Would that be geared to the cost of production? 

Do you want that? 

Mr. ARGANBRIGHT. Yes, absolutely, the target price should be 

based off the cost of production of all of the program crops. The 

problem with Olympic average price is wheat has historically had 

a lower Olympic average price than the other crops and that is one 

of the problems. 

Senator BAUCUS. Give me an idea to the degree to which rice and 

cotton are getting a better deal. Just flesh it out a little bit, please. 

Just tell me a little more about what is going on there, and evidence that that is the case. That is, that wheat and barley are not 

getting a square deal, at least on direct payments there, countercyclical, compared with those two other commodities. 

Mr. ARGANBRIGHT. That is a fair question. 

In regards to direct payments, wheat is actually fairly competitive. Where they have lost ground is in the loan rate and the 

counter-cyclical target price. 

We would prefer to see the inequity addressed in the counter-cyclical payment because with the loan rate, as you well know, if you 

do not cut a crop you do not get an LDP payment. So we think the 

counter-cyclical would be more beneficial to Montana producers 

long-term. 

Senator BAUCUS. My time is running out here, but let me ask 

you, Colette, you gave four recommendations. It is tragic. It is currently, as you said, $1.02 per meal is all the benefit that people get. 

It is not indexed and the assets are not indexed. That is low, and 

the paperwork, et cetera. 

But if you were to also give us, in a sense, some direction and 

priorities among those four recommendations, which one would you 

weight a little more? Just some guidance here. 

Ms. GRAY. I think probably the adequacy of the benefit. When 

Bob was talking about health care being connected to food, it is a 

big part of it. A lot of these are young families just starting out or 

elderly folks. That is a time when nutrition is very important. And 

that $1.02 per person per meal or the $10 per month just does not 

meet dietary needs. 

And so I think that is probably the biggest one, is that while 

those folks are out there, most of them are working families. 

Senator BAUCUS. Is it true that those low numbers force people 

to buy unnutritious foods, that is high in sugar content, starch that 

tends toward obesity and so forth? Is that accurate? 

16

Ms. GRAY. And also non-organic foods because of the fact that the 

organic foods are more expensive. So they are trading off the dietary needs of nutrition for what they can afford to get some food 

on the table. 

Senator BAUCUS. I have a lot more questions to ask but my time 

is up. 

Senator TESTER. Just real quickly, as long as you are warmed 

up, Colette, we will just start with you. 

How big is your region? 

Ms. GRAY. We do the six counties around Great Falls? 

Senator TESTER. How many participants do you have in the program? 

Ms. GRAY. Actually, the food stamp program is not our program. 

It is with the Office of Public Assistance. But right now we are 

doing as pilot project helping more people apply, because recently, 

about two years ago, it was about 54 percent of the people that are 

actually eligible were getting the food. We have increased that to 

58 percent now. But it is still not as high as it could be. 

Senator TESTER. When was the last time that $1.02 a meal was 

adjusted? 

Ms. GRAY. It has not gone up, to the best of my knowledge—and 

I would have to look it up and get a good answer to you. But to 

the best of my knowledge, it has not been changed since 1996, 

when they did the—

Senator TESTER. Since 1996. Is there any group around that you 

know of that has done—this kind of dovetails off of Max’s question—work on health in regards to those high sugar foods? 

Ms. GRAY. We don’t. 

Senator TESTER. Because there is not a lot of protein in $1.02 a 

meal. 

Ms. GRAY. Statewide there is a program with the MSU Extension 

Offices that helps people buy better foods, budget better, and cook 

more nutritious, a program that helps them do the shopping and 

the cooking. 

Senator TESTER. Okay, that is fine. Thank you very much. 

Darin, very quickly, the target price versus the counter-cyclical 

payments and the Olympic average and all of those good things, 

what would you use? If you were Tom Harkin and you could put 

the figure in, what would you use for the target price? Where 

would you go to get that number? 

Mr. ARGANBRIGHT. I would base it off the ERS, Economic Research Service, cost of production for wheat in the United States. 

Senator TESTER. How much bigger would that be? How much 

more—what is the target price right now? Can you tell me? 

Mr. ARGANBRIGHT. The current target is $3.92. 

Senator TESTER. What would it be if you use the ERS? 

Mr. ARGANBRIGHT. The number we have come up with is $5.29 

using ERS numbers. 

Senator TESTER. How often is that—I do not mean to give you 

20 questions, but how often is that adjusted, the ERS figure? 

Mr. ARGANBRIGHT. I believe it is annually but—

Senator TESTER. It is annually adjusted. Okay. So that could be 

plugged into the bill, in fact. 

Mr. ARGANBRIGHT. Absolutely. 

17

Senator TESTER. That is good enough. I do not mean to run on 

here because we will have to move to the next panel. 

But Alan, you talked about a permanent disaster program and 

you said that the FSA office that you have talked to said it could 

be easily done. How would that be based? Would it be based on if 

you got below the average yield in a county and it was declared a—

how would that be done? 

Mr. MERRILL. That is correct. 

Senator TESTER. That is how it would be done? 

Mr. MERRILL. That is correct. 

Senator TESTER. If there was a disaster situation in a particular 

region? 

Mr. MERRILL. Yes. 

Senator TESTER. And it did not meet county average——

Mr. MERRILL. Yes. 

Senator TESTER. There would be a payment bumping up, based 

on a target price for that one? 

Mr. MERRILL. Yes, that is correct. 

Senator TESTER. Good enough. Thank you. 

Bob, in regards to importation of food, which is kind of—I think 

it bothers all of us as far as not being able to raise it here. In the 

organic market, is that due simply to lack of production? Or is it 

due to—are there price factors involved? Or do we not have the correct trade agreements? Or are we not—there are a lot of factors out 

there. 

In your assessment, is it mainly due to a lack of production at 

the farm? 

Mr. QUINN. Well, the problem has been that the organic demand 

has continued to grow at an extremely high rate and the organic 

production has not followed suit. As it starts to accelerate even 

more—I mean, Wal–Mart has come in now, and some very big 

players that we did not expect this soon, I guess. 

That has put a demand on all of the supply that cannot be met 

and it is coming in from other countries. There has not been 

enough transition fast enough to meet it. 

Senator TESTER. As Senator Baucus pointed out, I want to thank 

all of you for taking the time to be here and prepare your statements and going out to your membership and coming forth with 

ideas that can help improve it. It has been very valuable. Thank 

you very much. 

Senator BAUCUS. I just have a very basic question with respect 

to the permanent disaster program. I understand the estimates are 

it would cost about $1 billion a year, and that would be a five year 

or six year farm program, $5 billion or $6 billion. 

Going back to my basic question of what is more important, as 

you know, we usually have passed an ad hoc disaster assistance 

and it just covered one out of three years. In earlier years, several 

years ago, when we passed one it just basically said even if you had 

two consecutive years of drought or disaster, you still could not 

get—you were only covered for one. These usually do not turn out 

too well, these disaster programs that Congress eventually passes. 

I have to tell you, it is pulling teeth, trying to get members—first 

to get the leadership of the House and Senate to bring them up. 

18

Then they have got to be added on to a pretty strong horse that 

is going to pass, otherwise they tend to falter and die. 

But that sort of begs another question, and that is just the cost. 

I know you do not want it, nor do I want it, taken out of the program. So that would be an additional $5 billion or $6 billion. 

But again, something in the news, it is something your organizations and your membership faces and I need a little guidance here, 

the Committee needs a little guidance, of the degree to which this 

is so important that maybe some other efforts might not get as 

much assistance as permanent disaster. 

I know you do not want it out of the farm program, so we can 

add on. 

And as you also know, southern States are not too wild about 

this because they do not get—they are a little different. They do 

not get the same disasters that we get. They do not have the same 

drought conditions basically with cotton, rice and so forth, as we 

get in our part of the country. 

So just your thoughts, anybody who wants to address that. 

Mr. ARGANBRIGHT. I guess I could speak first. 

Disaster is not something we are opposed to, disaster program. 

The trade-off, of course, is going to be paying for it. It is going to 

be problematic to trade off, everybody keeps looking at the direct 

payment, to trade off something you can count on—as I have in 

previous years when we had droughts—to switch over to something 

you may never see income from is a difficult job. 

Senator BAUCUS. Any other thoughts, anybody? Robert, Alan, 

anybody? 

Mr. QUINN. I do not know why an insurance program could not 

be beefed up, Senator, to help in the interim. If it is a choice, that 

would be better than nothing. 

Senator BAUCUS. We will just double the crop insurance you are 

getting. The 5 percent add-on, we will just double that. 

Mr. QUINN. Very good. 

Mr. MERRILL. Aside from providing money, you know, if it 

brought the troops home several months earlier, you could do the 

calculation real quick and have your extra $20 billion just like that. 

There is a lot of money going out, that we mentioned. We really 

need—we have demands at home that are really important. And I 

know that there are demands overseas, but we do not want to be 

bleeding—

Senator BAUCUS. Those are very good points. Jon. 

Senator TESTER. The problem with drought is that usually you 

get in these doggone cycles and it is not just one and two years, 

it is three years in a row. And then the crop insurance tanks as 

do all those kind of safety nets that are there. 

I think, Bob, you brought up a good point. In lieu of something 

that cost $1 billion, if we were to be able to bump up that insurance program so that we would not use all of your yield base because of repeated drought years, that might be something to think 

about. 

The other thing is the $2 billion a year—and I am talking about 

money being available—it is $2 billion a week going out the door 

for the war. But it is also an $8.6 trillion deficit that has been run 

19

up over the last 15 or 20 years that tends to make people who have 

to balance books look twice. 

Senator BAUCUS. Great. Thanks very much, all of you. Feel free 

to contact the Committee to add more testimony if you want to, 

and certainly me personally and Senator Tester personally. But 

thanks very, very much. 

Thank you. 

The next panel, the first witness Jim Taber, Chairman of the 

Young Farmers and Ranchers, Montana Farm Bureau; Mr. Dave 

Hinnaland, on the Board of Directors of the Montana Wool Growers; Steve Roth, President of the Montana Stockgrowers Association; and Brett DeBruycker, President of the Cattlemen’s Association. 

Okay, Jim, you are on. 

STATEMENT OF JIM TABER, CHAIRMAN, YOUNG FARMERS 

AND RANCHERS, MONTANA FARM BUREAU, SHAWMUT, MONTANA 

Mr. TABER. Thank you, Senator Baucus, Senator Tester. 

My name is Jim Taber, as you said, Farm Bureau and Young 

Farmer and Rancher Chairman. I am a fourth generation cattle 

rancher from Shawmut, Montana. 

I would just thank you for the opportunity to speak on livestock 

issues. 

Three of them that I would like to speak on is country of origin 

labeling, the Packers and Stockyards Act, and a national identification system, and follow that by a discussion on young producers. 

As far as country of origin labeling, the Montana Farm Bureau 

supports a country of origin labeling program that is market driven, consumer friendly using science-based labeling of agricultural 

products, and funded at the Federal level. 

COOL legislation should include the following points, which are 

further detailed in my written comments: an establish a recognizable national logo and a definition of country of origin labeling, 

meaning born, raised and process in the United States. 

As far as the Packers and Stockyards Act, American Farm Bureau policy book states that we support legislation on a State and 

national basis establishing GIPSA as the overall authority and provider of oversight to ensure livestock contracts are clearly written, 

confidentiality concerns are addressed, investments are protected, 

enhanced price transparency exists, and price discovery and contractors honor the terms of the contracts. 

Two legislative changes that the Farm Bureau supports are legislation providing mandatory arbitration so that producers are not 

prevented from going to courts to speak out against unfair actions 

by companies; legislation allowing meat and poultry inspected 

under State programs which are equal to Federal inspection and 

approved by USDA to move on interstate commerce. 

We are aware that Senator Baucus is currently sponsor such legislation and we feel that Montana will greatly be impacted by this. 

As far as a national identification system, we support establishment and implementation of a voluntary animal ID, capable of providing support for animal disease, control, and eradication while 

protecting producer privacy and producer ownership of their data. 

20

We support the following guidelines for a livestock identification 

program: before a voluntary program can be considered, we must 

pass confidentiality language to protect producers. The program be 

simple and inexpensive. 

We urge the USDA to conduct a full cost analysis study of the 

NAIS program, as Farm Bureau remains concerned about three 

major issues that will affect success. The first is cost. How much 

will the program be to each producer? And that the producer 

should not have to bear all of the cost. 

Confidentiality. Who has access to the data under NAIS? And 

can producers be assured protection from unintended use of the 

data they submit? 

One good thing about that would be that it would be for a nonprofit private company. 

Liability. Are producers appropriately protected from the consequences of the actions of others after the animals are no longer 

in their control? 

Moving on to the beginning farmer and rancher, the Farm Bureau supports the continuation of the conservation cost-shared differential for young and beginning farmers that exists in the current 

farm bill of 90 percent through the EQIP program. 

We are also encouraged and hopeful about Senator Baucus’s possible provision for the CRP contracts contained in Senator Harkin’s 

bill where the producer could get two additional CRP payments if 

it was turned over to a beginning farmer and rancher. 

Another important area is the definition of what is a beginning 

farmer. Is it someone that has been on a family farm and now 

started off on their own? Or if he is a rancher? That language 

needs to be worked on. 

One thing that our committee is trying to come up with is possibly a tax incentive for an older, retiring producer that would turn 

over to a younger producer and have the opportunity to have a tax 

break so that he could literally sell his place for less and give the 

young producer a chance to be able to start out. Because you know, 

as anybody, the urban sprawl and land costs, 1031 exchanges, have 

really hampered how a young producer can really get into it. 

Most producers now are in their 50s and 60s. I know in my own 

area there is about 10 of us left in about a three county area. I believe that something really needs to be established in this farm bill 

to help young producers get started. Without that, American agriculture is going to be headed down. 

I thank you for the opportunity. 

Senator BAUCUS. Thank you, Jim. 

Dave. 

STATEMENT OF DAVE HINNALAND, MONTANA WOOL 

GROWERS ASSOCIATION, CIRCLE, MONTANA 

Mr. HINNALAND. Thank you, I am Dave Hinnaland, a fourth generation producer. And on behalf of fellow sheep producers of Montana, I appreciate the opportunity to discuss our Nation’s ag policy 

with you. 

I am currently on the Board of Directors for the Montana Wool 

Growers and have recently been appointed to the Predator Committee of the American Sheep Industry. 

21

My family and I run a cattle, sheep, and small grain operation 

west of Circle. To supplement our ranching habit, we also run a 

small trucking company in Circle. Sheep have and will continue to 

be a large part of our operation. 

Some of the key issues facing the sheep and wool industry, the 

LDP on wool, the National Sheep Industry Improvement Center, 

predator control, ewe lamb retention program and prescribed grazing for weed control. 

I am pleased to comment on the positive impact of the current 

farm bill as it included the new Wool Loan Deficiency Program, 

which provides the only safety net for wool producers. While nine 

loan rates are available, essentially all wool LDP applications are 

in one non-graded rate category. The research provided in 2002 by 

the Food and Agriculture Policy Research Institute supported $1.20 

per pound base loan rate. However, legislation lowered the base to 

$1.00 per pound with a budget score of $20 million annually. 

In the four years that this program has been in effect, it has 

never come close to the $20 million budget mark. I would encourage the Committee to reauthorize the wool LDP at a base loan rate 

of $1.20 per pound in order to provide the benefits the program 

originally intended. 

The National Sheep Industry Improvement Center, as established in the 1996 Farm Bill, provided loans and grants to business 

ventures where normal commercial credit or funds were not available. The program is not for individual producers or for the purchasing of sheep or land, but rather for projects to strengthen 

sheep business such as wool warehouses, lamb slaughter, processing ventures, et cetera. We would urge the reauthorization of 

this program, as it expired in the fall of 2006. 

Predator control is a major concern of sheep producers in Montana. As we fight an ongoing battle with coyotes throughout the 

State and as wolves are ever increasing their territory, it is of utmost importance to the industry that we continue to receive protection from these and other predators so our operations may remain 

profitable. 

I feel the ewe lamb retention program played a major role in stabilizing U.S. sheep numbers. After several years of decline, 2004 

marked the first growth in the U.S. sheep inventory. We grew our 

industry again in 2005, the first year-on-year increases in numbers 

since 1987–1988. Industry growth improves competitiveness for all 

segments of the industry, from lamb feeders to lamb meat companies, wool warehouses, the wool mills, feed suppliers, trucking 

firms, and shearing companies. Reinstating the ewe lamb retention 

program would help us to continue to grow the U.S. sheep industry. 

In regards to the prescribed grazing, sheep have proven to be 

very beneficial in the control of noxious weeds. We believe the farm 

bill should address programs and direction to support prescriptive 

grazing projects with sheep and goats. Scientific studies and onthe-ground experiences have clearly demonstrated that livestock 

are a promising tool in the battle against weeds on pastures, rangelands, and in our forests. 

22

I see a win-win situation for all involved to have noxious weeds 

going in one end of a sheep and organic fertilizer coming out the 

other. 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide the sheep industry priorities. 

Senator BAUCUS. Thank you, Dave for a little levity, too. Appreciate that, very much. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BAUCUS. Steve. 

STATEMENT OF STEVE ROTH, PRESIDENT, MONTANA 

STOCKGROWERS ASSOCIATION, BIG SANDY, MONTANA 

Mr. ROTH. Senator Baucus, Senator Tester, thank you for the opportunity to speak. On behalf of the Montana Stockgrowers Association, my name is Steve Roth. I am a cattle producer from Big 

Sandy. 

Montana Stock Growers’ philosophy has always been one of limited Government involvement and—

Senator BAUCUS. Pull your microphone up a little closer. That 

helps, so everybody can hear. I should have done that earlier, but 

at least we will start now. 

Mr. ROTH. We believe in limited Government involvement in 

market-driven systems. Government programs, such as cost-share 

programs, tax incentives, and funding of education and research 

are some of our primary concerns. We feel that there are a few 

points we would like to bring up that can be addressed by the farm 

bill. 

First of all, I would hope that the next generation is what ranching in Montana is all about and what the farm bill is about. Some 

of the programs that are out there, such as EQIP, are very wellintended programs and work for the benefit of the producers. But 

in some cases they discriminate against other producers and it 

would be nice if EQIP was more predictable. 

With regard to mostly grazing and haying of CRP, we would 

hope that the Farm Service Agency, the local committees could 

make those decisions. 

With regard to Yellowstone Park brucellosis, the elk and bison 

herds of the Greater Yellowstone area contain the last reservoir of 

Brucella abortus in the United States. The control of this disease 

as cost the U.S. taxpayers and ranchers millions of dollars. The 

stockgrowers fully support the signing of the memorandum of understanding by the United States Department of Agriculture, 

USDA, and the Department of Interior, which directs USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service as the lead agency in developing and implementation of the brucellosis elimination plan for 

the Greater Yellowstone area. 

Let me just stop there and say that our priority should be the 

eradication of brucellosis in the Yellowstone National Park’s bisons 

and the Greater Yellowstone area elk, providing for a clean and 

healthy environment that benefits both livestock and wildlife. 

We would also like to see that the research and education portion 

of the Montana State University’s bioscience complex be funded. 

In the endangered species, we would ask that you take caution 

when considering programs such as EQIP which have the potential 

23

to adversely impact participants neighbors since wildlife recognize 

no property boundaries. 

In the area of noxious weeds, this is a huge economic impact to 

ranchers and others. And we would ask that a great deal of emphasis be given to the area of biological control of noxious weeds. 

Animal identification. Montana Stockgrowers has long recognized 

the importance and the need for a national livestock ID system for 

better livestock control and diseases surveillance. Montana 

Stockgrowers want a system that operates at a minimal cost, and 

protects producer confidentiality, while recognizing the hot iron 

brand as a method of cattle identification. A Government database 

would be cumbersome and likely to grow into a large bureaucracy. 

With regard to country of origin labeling, Montana Stockgrowers 

has expressed strong support for a practical, cost-effective, country 

of origin labeling program. Current mandatory COOL statute and 

proposed USDA rules are confusing, discriminatory and potentially 

costly for Montana cattle producers. Voluntary COOL has provided 

no incentives to foster implementation thus far. Therefore, we must 

find a way to make certain this law will be amended so it helps 

and does not hinder Montana’s cattle producers. 

With regard to renewable energy, we must hope that in this rush 

for alternative energy sources that one hand does not bite the other 

and that we take into consideration what is done for one group 

may adversely affect another. We strongly support our Nation’s 

commitment to reduce dependence on foreign energy. 

Research and education, we certainly would like to see the continuation of a regional pilot program with regard to stewardship for 

those of us who are trying to steward the land as one of the last 

unaltered resources that this country has. 

In conclusion, I would like to thank you for this opportunity and 

again remind you there is a delicate balance in this whole agricultural community that we live in. What you do to one area may affect another one. We hope that the farm bill process will attain 

profitability and economic stability to Montana’s cattle producers. 

Senator BAUCUS. Thank you, Steve. 

Brett, you are on. 

STATEMENT OF BRETT DeBRUYCKER, PRESIDENT, MONTANA 

CATTLEMEN’s ASSOCIATION, DUTTON, MONTANA 

Mr. DEBRUYCKER. Senators, thank you. I am Brett DeBruycker, 

a farmer and rancher from Dutton, Montana. I will not bore you 

with the details about what we do up there, but we have a purebred Charolais herd and we—

Senator BAUCUS. Go ahead and give us more details now. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. DEBRUYCKER. We feed quite a few cattle north of Choteau 

as well as in the Midwest of the State. 

I am President of the Montana Cattlemen’s Association, the fastest growing cattle organization in the State. I am very appreciative 

of this opportunity. 

The issues that I was asked to address today, I will try to skim 

over fairly quickly rather than read the testimony. 

Mandatory COOL, there is really not much more to say than the 

time is now. We have got a law in place from the 2002 Farm Bill. 

24

We have been getting stonewalled for five years now, if not longer. 

And we hope that you will take this seriously and find a way to 

fund it in this farm bill. 

As well as that, we need some Congressional oversight and some 

producer input into the rules making process. It is obvious that 

USDA has a bit of a track record with COOL and we hope that the 

funding will be followed with some oversight. 

It is time to be honest with our consumers and give them the opportunity to make informed decisions about what beef they want to 

buy and serve to their families. 

On the issue of linking animal ID with country of origin labeling, 

I cannot think of a more ridiculous way of going about things. 

There is really no need for that. They are two completely separate 

issues. There is no need to link the two together. 

Country of origin labeling is a marketing issue, which is used to 

create a situation where your consumers are informed. And animal 

ID is an animal health issue. They are two completely different 

things that do not need to be connected. This idea has really been 

brought forth by the opponents of country of origin labeling and 

they are using this to weaken the implementation of COOL. 

When you have your discussions in D.C., I would hope that you 

remember three things: One, that the vast majority of consumers 

and producers do support mandatory country of origin labeling. The 

vast majority of producers are not in favor of an ID system. And 

also one little fact that often gets overlooked is that there are State 

and national organizations that stand to profit from an ID system. 

So please keep that in the back of your minds. 

In regards to competition, Montana Cattlemen’s is always in 

favor of finding new ways to create competition for its members 

and for Montana producers. We all know there is four major packers in the country and they control well over 80 percent of the kill 

capacity. We do support a competition title in this next farm bill 

and hope that it will address certain things such as market transparency and complete price reporting of forward contracts. 

A way to enhance competition is through the interstate shipment 

of meat. Now how to look at that is you need to step back and realize that in the 1967 and 1968 Meat and Poultry Acts there was—

I am going to run short of time here. 

Senator BAUCUS. Go ahead. 

Mr. DEBRUYCKER. In the 1967 and 1968 acts, the Federal Government decided that the States needed to have a certain level of 

inspection for their meats and poultry. That is a good thing. We all 

need to be on a level playing field. So they set a minimum level 

with which they need to adhere to. 

But then also in those acts, they restricted those States from 

only in-state commerce. So we cannot ship outside the State, even 

though we are still meeting—even though our in-state packers and 

processors are meeting these high levels that are set upon us, we 

cannot ship out of the State. 

So it is important that you take a serious look at that, because 

Montana has some of the most top quality genetics in the United 

States, as well as the world. And so it is time to allow these producers a chance to capture some of the market share that is out 

there to get. 

25

One of the things that MCA did in the last legislative session 

here in Montana is we helped pass the Montana Certified Natural 

Beef Program. And that is why we feel this interstate shipment of 

beef is so important, because we think this is a way that through 

this bill and State certification we can use interstate shipment of 

meat to enhance our market share. 

When you really break it down, it is really just an issue of fairness. Are we going to continue let big business rule this shipment 

of beef and meat? Or are we going to allow entrepreneurs and 

small businesses and small packers to begin to take part in this 

process and realize some gains? 

So again, thank you. 

Senator BAUCUS. You bet, Brett. Thank you. 

I will start with you, Jim. What is it basically going to take to 

make sure that beginning farmers, young farmers here in our 

State, see a future in agriculture? What does it really come down 

to? Bottom line, a couple three things, so we are not just going on 

the edges but just hey, this is what it takes to get young folks interested. 

Mr. TABER. When a young producer goes to the bank to get 

money, the first thing they want is collateral. And how can you 

have collateral if you do not have anything? So that is why I think 

the tax incentive for an older producer, where a mediator between 

an older and a younger producer can get together over a period of 

three to five years and work together on turning that place over 

where the older producer can have that tax credit and make it 

more feasible for the younger guy to get started. 

Because with land prices and machinery costs, all of that stuff 

together, a young producer without—like in my situation, being in 

a family situation, you cannot make it work. 

Senator BAUCUS. So it is a little bit similar to the CRP idea that 

you discussed and the legislation we are all talking about here? 

Mr. TABER. Yes. 

Senator BAUCUS. Namely, two years payment to someone who 

gives up his contract earlier for a younger farmer, so long as it goes 

into production. 

Mr. TABER. Sure. Myself, I am personally against CRP because 

there is land out there that is holding where a young producer cannot get hold of it. And 1031 exchanges kind of do that, too. Them 

items are good in certain circumstances, but for young producers, 

they hold them back. 

Senator BAUCUS. It is amazing. I think our State has what, 

somebody knows much better than I, about 5 million acres in production, agricultural production. Grain anyway, wheat. I guess it 

is wheat. Is that correct? I see Darin back there. 

But about 3 million in CRP. What is the acreage in CRP? We 

have 3.5 million in CRP, the second largest State in the Nation. It 

is a blessing and it is a curse, in some ways. 

But you basically think that giving younger farmers, beginning 

farmers, some kind of transition from older—it does not have to be 

older, just existing operator, to help him or her transition to a beginning or younger farmer. 

26

Mr. TABER. I think there is some opportunity there because of 

the biodiesel coming on. If that ground was available to get them 

back to producing something. 

Senator BAUCUS. Let me ask others the same question. This 

comes up so often in our State, it is hard for younger folks to get 

going here. 

Brett, you do not have quite as much gray hair as some others 

there. Your thoughts. 

Mr. DEBRUYCKER. You know, I think that Jim is on to something 

there, as far as with the banks. They need to do something—there 

needs to be something a little more on FMHA office to where it is 

a little bit easier for young farmers to go in and get some beginning 

farmer loans. 

Today disaster loans are not that difficult to come by but the 

young farmers, there is certain criteria that you need to meet and 

it is pretty easy to get tossed out of that and miss your chance. 

Senator BAUCUS. Steve or Dave, thoughts on how to get the 

things really interested for younger folks, beginning farmers? 

Mr. ROTH. I think there are some good ideas here. And also, you 

could possibly do something like a conservation easement for those 

people, for someone selling out, like Jim mentioned, a tax credit. 

But then that would have to stay, obviously, in that particular 

business. 

And also, the paperwork that is burdensome for people that are 

going to FSA office and try to get a loan on cows and everything, 

it is unfathomable how much paperwork there is to fill out. If you 

could do something there, that would help. 

Senator BAUCUS. Dave, your thoughts? 

Mr. HINNALAND. I guess I do not have—there has been some 

good response. Like in our country, a young producer with no equity virtually has no chance to get their foot in the door at the 

price that the ranches are bringing down there, be it outside interests for the hunting or someone that wants to put it back into production agriculture, boy they have a tough road ahead of them. 

Senator BAUCUS. You have given us some thoughts. There are 

some ideas there we can work with. 

While we are talking about COOL, your thoughts on what we do 

about it. As you know, if we do nothing it automatically goes into 

effect in 2008. So some suggest maybe we should wait until 2008 

and it goes into law. Others suggest no, let us get this going earlier. Let us work with it and let us get it passed. 

You addressed this, Brett, some want to tie it to some kind of 

a national ID program. But we all want COOL, especially given all 

of the reports in the news with all of the products coming in from 

overseas, various countries coming into America from lots of countries which will go nameless at this point. 

But it is a huge issue because the world has become so 

globalized. And to make it even more complicated I think a lot of 

importers that are bringing food products to the United States 

push other countries to cut corners. They may not directly, but indirectly have that effect as the importers are trying to import products as cheaply as they possibly can. So even more than ever, we 

must have COOL passed into law. 

27

But again, your advice. Do we wait to 2008? Do we tempt fate 

a little bit and try to change it, make it work better? You might 

have some ideas, Brett. I assume nobody there disagrees with Brett 

when he says do not tie it to any national ID system. But a little 

guidance gain on COOL and what we do about COOL at this point. 

Mr. DEBRUYCKER. I would address that. We have got the law and 

it is in place. 

Senator BAUCUS. You are talking about mandatory COOL. 

Mr. DEBRUYCKER. Mandatory COOL. That is right. 

We have got the law. What we need are the rules. The Montana 

Cattlemen’s Association is okay with the idea of waiting until September of 2008 when it is due to become law. But let’s make sure 

we have rules in place beforehand and let’s make sure we have got 

the funding in place beforehand so that we are not stonewalled 

again for another five years. 

That would be the biggest thing is to make sure that USDA does 

it right and there is some Congressional oversight. 

Senator BAUCUS. That is a very good point. When you mentioned 

that point, Brett, I thought boy, that guy is right. Because left to 

its own devices—I am not being critical to the USDA, but left to 

its own devices, it is probably getting pretty bureaucrat, a lot of unnecessary complications. 

Anybody else, thoughts on COOL? 

Mr. TABER. I would just have to echo Brett’s opinion. 

Senator BAUCUS. Your thoughts on brucellosis? What is the best 

way to eradicate brucellosis, so we are just not spending all of our 

time working about this. What do we do? 

Mr. ROTH. Well, we test and slaughter. 

Senator BAUCUS. What is that? 

Mr. ROTH. I think we need to test and slaughter. Ted Turner has 

done it. It is biologically possible and it is not going to be something that happens overnight. But it is certainly in the best interest of everyone, I believe, the wildlife community and everyone, to 

eradicate that reservoir of Brucella in the bison herd and then we 

can argue some things about it. 

But I think hopefully risk management does not become the 

modus operandi and we forget about eradication. I believe eradication is ultimately the solution. 

Senator BAUCUS. Dave. 

Mr. HINNALAND. I guess I would like to see maybe the Park 

Service handle their bison a little bit more like we have to handle 

our livestock on our ranches. If they have got a problem, it needs 

to be addressed. It is a very serious issue, the brucellosis. I do not 

know, I guess it comes down to, I guess in my own opinion, I think 

they got too darn many buffalo up there to sustain what they have 

now. It is a very tough, complex issue. 

Senator BAUCUS. So you want more wolves? 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. HINNALAND. No. 

Senator BAUCUS. Sorry, I could not resist. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. ROTH. Senator Baucus, we would just hope that the Federal 

Government would recognize their responsibility for their wildlife, 

their diseased wildlife. 

28

Senator BAUCUS. Good point. I am sorry. 

Jon. 

Senator TESTER. I do not know if I can follow that. 

First of all, Jim, I appreciate the work with—well, all of your 

work. But the young farmers issue is a big issue. We are getting 

fewer and fewer of us and soon there may be not enough to sustain 

our food security. So I appreciate it. 

I guess the question that rattled around in my head 25 years ago 

is the same question that rattles around in it today. And that is 

what the definition of a beginning farmer is. It is really difficult 

to know. 

The other question becomes, and this is not new, is if you give 

tax relief, what happens if it is a rigged deal? You know what I 

mean, they get tax relief and they dump it off to somebody else and 

never had the intention of farming. 

I think, Senator Baucus, your traditional payments after the 

CRP is a terrific idea. 

Are there any groups around that are working on a definition 

that you heard of that really can work? 

Mr. TABER. This idea kind of stemmed from a pilot program that 

is taking place in Iowa with small family-owned dairy herds. They 

did some studies and that kind of stuff. 

The main thing is you have to have a mediator between the two 

parties and make sure that they are locked together and that the 

older producer is secure, just like you are saying, so that the 

younger guy cannot get it for a couple of years and then turn 

around and dump it. So there has to be some set guidelines. 

As far as the definition of a young producer, that is pretty tricky. 

At this time, I could not give you an exact definition what it should 

be. 

Senator TESTER. I did not expect that. 

Mr. TABER. As far as the policy now, I think it needs to be 

worked on just because young producers that are in a family business, if they decide to go off and start on their own, they are not 

eligible for any help. 

Senator TESTER. I certainly applaud your efforts and keep working. If you come up with some stuff, be sure and make sure that 

folks know about it because it is important. 

Dave, aside from the wolves eating the coyotes, which we went 

from there to bison, I would just ask you, the point about eating 

noxious weeds and creating good fertilizers is a good point. 

Is there any way to expand prescribed grazing to make that even 

more available? This is also an issue, I think Steve kind of talked 

about it, with the biological weed control. 

Mr. HINNALAND. To expand it? I guess I would like to see some 

monetary benefits where it would make it practical to bring some 

sheep and goats in to a project. If they could be included in your 

farm bill, be it trucking expense to move them in, herder expense. 

Senator TESTER. Is the Forest Service or the BLM working with 

sheep producers? 

Mr. HINNALAND. Yes, there is sheep on public lands doing weed 

projects. Yes, in some instances. 

Senator TESTER. How broad is that? Is it just a pilot project? Is 

it pretty extensive? 

29

Mr. HINNALAND. It is not very extensive. I guess to quote a 

project off the top of my head, I am drawing a blank. But there has 

been some talk back and forth. 

Senator TESTER. Maybe we ought to expand on that. 

Steve, Max and I were in the restaurant in the Capitol, it was 

pretty well reported on, actually. Max had a hamburger and it had 

Kobe beef on it. I said no, Max, it is—

Senator BAUCUS. It did not say that, the menu called it Kobe 

beef. 

Senator TESTER. I said it just must be the process. It has got to 

be American grown in our Nation’s capitol, for goodness sakes. 

Well, Max did a little investigation and presto-chango it was, indeed, out of Japan. 

There are instances of that on the East Coast all over. I have 

stopped in a restaurant and they asked me if I wanted chicken or 

beef on my taco. I said where did the beef come from? And they 

said Australia, and were proud of it. It was a little bit disconcerting. 

But the question is with COOL. If I heard your testimony, you 

said that there was some discrimination that could happen with 

COOL and it would actually—and I do not want to put words in 

your mouth—and it could actually be detrimental to producers. 

And that is not what Max or I are up here for. When it comes to 

production agriculture, we want to give them every advantage in 

the marketplace possible. 

Specifically, is that something you see out there for country of origin labeling, as a detriment? I would actually see it as a market 

advantage for producers, if consumers knew where their meat came 

from. I know I would. I would buy it out of the shelf if it said—

more than just a USDA stamp, if it said American produced beef. 

Mr. ROTH. Senator Tester, I could not disagree with you in any 

way there. I think the disadvantage that our producers are concerned about is that we are not margin operators. We are—in the 

production chain we are price takers and not price setters. Any cost 

that is incurred at every level of production has a tendency to fall 

to the bottom, and that is kind of where we are now would be one 

of the concerns we have as far as—Dean Folkvord who runs Wheat 

Montana did a survey one time before he started this. He went out 

and surveyed people, would you buy Montana-produced bread that 

was produced by Montana wheat? And they said oh yes, we will. 

But when he put it on the shelf and Sweetheart bread was three 

cents less, they brought the Sweetheart bread. 

But that is not to say, we are in favor of country of origin labeling. We just hope it is implemented in a way that does not adversely affect our producers. 

Senator TESTER. It is creative marketing, I think. Folkvord has 

done pretty well. 

Mr. ROTH. I think it is Starbucks that is doing it. 

Senator TESTER. That is true. 

Brett, when you talk about the meat inspection, not being able 

to ship meat out of State—between States—I was under the assumption, correct me if I am wrong, that the State inspection 

standards were equivalent with the Federal standards. Are they 

not? 

30

Mr. DEBRUYCKER. The minimum is set by the Feds and the 

States have to meet that minimum. But the majority of States have 

a higher level of inspection standards. 

Senator TESTER. Than the Federal. So there is really no reason 

not to allow the cross-state border shipment? 

Mr. DEBRUYCKER. The only reason is to limit 

entrepreneursialship. 

Senator TESTER. Sounds like a good idea for a bill. We need to 

get that fixed. That is big. 

As I said to the previous panel, I appreciate you folks coming up 

here and preparing and really giving us your perspective on the ag 

bill. It is tremendously helpful and I appreciate all the work you 

are doing for the State. Thank you very much. 

Mr. ROTH. Senator Tester, this happens not only with what Brett 

is talking about with meat inspectors, but also with State veterinarians and with weights. You can haul 62,000 pounds out of Montana but you cannot haul it into Minnesota. 

Senator TESTER. Gotcha. 

Senator BAUCUS. Thank you. 

Dave, just a couple of examples of how the Rueben Center funds 

really work and have results would make a difference. I am asking 

because when we go to the Committee we want to have some good 

examples why this is a good deal here and we ought to have it. So 

you have to rattle off maybe one or two points. 

Mr. HINNALAND. I do not, to my knowledge, I do not think there 

has been any money come back directly to Montana producers. 

There has been surrounding States with Montana producers involved. I believe there is a Wyoming lamb coop that took advantage 

of that with some Montana producers involved. 

I believe the last monies that were available was going towards 

the LRP lamb program to start that up. I guess I do not know 

where that sits right now. But something like that would be very 

beneficial to the producers. As the lamb market has peaks and valleys, they do all right during the times of the peaks but it is a little 

rough in the valleys. One of them programs really would be beneficial in taking some of the volatility out of the market. 

Senator BAUCUS. Did it not also provide some funds to develop 

some underwear and some—

Mr. HINNALAND. The military, sure. The military is a big user of 

U.S. wool. 

Senator BAUCUS. That was developed with this program? 

Mr. HINNALAND. Yes, it was and it was very well received. There 

were some military people at the Helley Ranch in Dillon a few 

years ago. We talked with them and they were very pleased with 

the product. It was very well received. 

Senator BAUCUS. Thank you. Jon. 

Senator TESTER. Just one more question that came to my mind. 

A few months ago I spoke with some people who were not affiliated 

with any particular farm group, they were just producers, they 

were ranchers. 

Senator Harkin is very is very intrigued with the Conservation 

Securities Program and about taking it from pilot level and fully 

funding it. These ranchers, and I could not get any specifics out of 

them, said that the CSP program has worked pretty well for farmVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:42 Nov 16, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\38704.TXT SAG2 PsN: SAG2
31

ers but it has not worked real well for ranchers. I do not exactly 

know, I assume it was because they were not eligible. 

Can you guys shed any light on that? I am not in an area personally that is in one of those pilot projects. There is one north and 

around, but not in my area. I was just wondering if you guys had 

any awareness of the CSP pilot programs and how they do or do 

not work for ranchers. 

Mr. DEBRUYCKER. I am not in one of the watersheds but go 

ahead. 

Mr. TABER. I am not in the watershed either, but I do know 

something. 

Senator TESTER. Go ahead. 

Mr. DEBRUYCKER. Forgive me, but what I understand is some of 

the rules are—for ranchers, the ideal thing that CSP wants is for 

you to alternate grass pastures each year. This is just one example. 

But there are different varieties of grass. And some varieties need 

to be grazed at certain times of the year. So if you have to alternate no matter what, to stay in compliance with the program, it 

seems a little bit out of whack. 

Another thing, and I do not know the exact specifics, but it has 

to do with if you have a couple of horses and you keep them in this 

pasture by your house all year long, that can throw you out of compliance. It is just little compliance issues like that is the way I understand it. 

Senator TESTER. Good. 

Senator BAUCUS. Thank you very much. This is very helpful. It 

makes a big difference. 

Your statements, again, will be in the record and we will look at 

it. Clearly, you are going to give us more thoughts as we get closer 

to make some provisions in the farm program. So keep in touch. 

Thank you very much. 

The next portion of our hearing today, this is for all of you to 

participate. 

Before we get there, though, I want to thank Jon Urban and Ann 

Haslett from the Agriculture Committee for helping us. Where is 

Jon? Stand up. Give them a round of applause. They are working 

hard for you. 

[Applause.] 

Senator BAUCUS. Give them a good Big Sky welcome for coming 

to our State. 

We want as many people to speak as we can possibly accommodate here but we only have about 30 minutes. So I want 

everybody’s statement to be restricted to two minutes. 

Now do not be too surprised if somebody comes up with a gentle 

little nudge and tells you that your two minutes is up. There is the 

gentle nudger right there. He is a very good guy. Russ Sullivan is 

his name. 

So all of you interested in speaking, just come on up to the 

microphone. Russ will give you the microphone for you to speak 

two minutes. Give your name and so forth, so we can have idea 

who you are. 

If there is not time for everybody—before I get to that, when you 

finish, if you have any written statement, give it to Christina 

32

Davis. Where is Christina? There is Christina. Give your written 

statements to Christina. 

And then after that, if there is not time left, do not worry. The 

record is going to be open until Friday. So you have got time to get 

your written testimony in. 

It is first come, first served. We have a line here. Anybody who 

does not want to testify? 

Mr. ZERBE. Senator Baucus, Senator Tester, my name is Grant 

Zerbe. I produce cereal grains and pulse crops in Northeast Montana, near Lester. Today I am testifying on behalf of the U.S. Dry 

Pea and Lentil Council. Montana ranks second in production of dry 

peas and lentils in the United States with over 300,000 acres planted this year. 

Our organization would like to thank Senator Baucus and the 

Senate Agriculture Committee for creating the marketing loan LDP 

program in 2002. The program has provided needed safety net for 

producers of dry pea, lentils, and chick peas. 

In the 2007 Farm Bill, we support continuing the current pulse 

marketing loan LDP program. We ask for an increase in the small 

chick pea loan rate to reflect market prices. We also ask Congress 

to establish a marketing loan program for large chick peas. 

Pulse crops are grown in rotation with wheat, barley, and minor 

oil seeks. Each crop in the rotation has a direct payment except for 

pulse crops. We support the creation of a direct payment for dry 

peas, lentils and chick peas equal to the direct payment received 

for wheat. 

The counter-cyclical program provides an additional safety net to 

producers facing low market prices. We support the creation of a 

counter-cyclical program for dry pea, lentils, and chick peas. We 

ask that the pulse crops be treated equally to those program crops 

with an effective counter-cyclical program. 

Producers need planting flexibility to respond to market signals. 

Currently, chick peas are classified as a vegetable crop and are not 

eligible to be planted on farm program base acres. We ask Congress to include chick peas as an eligible crop in the new farm bill. 

In summary, the U.S. dry pea, lentil, and chick pea farmers believe the 2007 Farm Bill should continue the current pulse marketing loan program with the addition of large chick peas. We ask 

that this safety net for pulse crops be expanded to include direct 

and counter-cyclical program and the inclusion of chick peas as an 

eligible crop to be planted on farm program base acres. 

I would like to thank the Committee for the opportunity to 

present this testimony. A copy of my testimony was provided to the 

Committee. 

Senator BAUCUS. Super. The lady to give it to is Christina. Everybody give your testimony, please, to Christina. Wave your hand, 

Christina. Wave big. There is Christina. 

Okay, Ron. 

Mr. DE YONG. Senator Baucus, Senator Tester. My name is Ron 

deYoung. I have a farm near Kalispell, Montana. 

Senator Baucus, I would like to address your first question that 

you put out on choices. Like everyone, I would like a stronger conservation title. I would like a stronger energy title. I would like to 

33

put more research dollars into organic. I would like more dollars 

into nutrition, but there are choices. 

In the process of doing all that, I urge you not to diminish the 

safety net in the commodity title. Now everybody gets a little bit 

comfortable when these prices come up. But their input costs come 

up with them, as Darin pointed out. And as soon as the industry 

gets comfortable with the supply of corn and wheat and soybeans, 

those prices are going to back off. And they do not have to come 

down very far and they hit those higher input costs. And as soon 

as they do, hundreds of farmers are going to be put out of business. 

So number one choice is do not diminish the safety net in the 

commodity title. 

Now a more specific answer would be that I was pleased the 

House Subcommittee passed an extension of the current farm bill 

with minor changes. I believe with the current budgetary and political environment, that might be the best option we are going to 

have in the short term. The minor changes, of course, would have 

to include strengthening the safety net for wheat. Because as Darin 

pointed out, we definitely got the short end of the straw in the safety net for wheat. That might be the best we can do in the short 

term. 

And then we need to start thinking right away about the longterm. In the long-term I think the correct direction to head is to 

take those three income payments and turn them into one income 

payment based upon cost of production. Because basically what 

they are trying to do anyway with those three payments is cover 

enough cost of production so that when you hit your cycle lows you 

do not lose hundreds of thousands of farmers. 

So if we can combine them into one and do some creative thinking and combine a disaster program in with it, I think in the longterm that is what we need to do. But we probably cannot do that 

in the short term. 

Senator BAUCUS. That is interesting. I appreciate it. Thanks, 

Ron. I appreciate it. Thanks, Ron. There is Christina, do not forget. 

Mr. STONER. John Stoner, I am a farmer from Havre, Montana, 

past president of the Montana Grain Growers. 

I do not want to go over what Ron just said, but I do want to 

reiterate the need for the direct payment. Right now we have great 

rainfall in Montana and the crops look pretty good in most parts 

of the State. But we all know—and we have record high prices 

right now. But those are probably not here to stay, the record high 

prices. And right now, with the high cost that we have, you need 

both high production and high prices to make ends meet. 

Put the payments in perspective, average farmer in Montana 

probably receives a direct payment of about $9 to $15 an acre 

versus $200 an acre costs. It is only about 4 to 7 percent covering 

the costs. It is not very much at all. But sometimes it is just 

enough to get us over the edge. 

So we have to maintain that direct payment and we have to have 

a target price based on costs of production. 

One other thing I wanted, thank you for the thank you that you 

had in the paper. That was excellent, talking about agriculture and 

the success story that we really are, that we really supply the highVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:42 Nov 16, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\38704.TXT SAG2 PsN: SAG2
34

est quality, the safest food at the lowest price of any industrialized 

country. And we have done that through conventional ways. 

We have done that with also protecting our environment. We go 

through practice like no till operations. We have reduced our soil 

and water erosion, increased our soil production, and also increased 

organic matter. 

Do not divert money from Title I to go to renewable fuels. We 

are excited about renewable fuels and we want to see it happen but 

we cannot divert money from it. 

No base and yield updates. 

And producers must be given credit for conservation practices 

that we have instituted before. CSP has got to be made eligible for 

all producers, rather than just a select few. It is a great program. 

Make it work. 

Senator BAUCUS. Thanks, John. You are welcome for the thank 

you. I just think the rest of the country just does not understand 

and recognize just how much agriculture has contributed, and especially how the cost of production has gone up, and up, and up, and 

up, and up, and up. Basically prices have been pretty flat, it has 

been okay in the last year. But as you said, it is not going to stay 

there forever. The whole country owes all of you in agriculture a 

big thank you. 

I made that point recently, a few days ago, and I wrote a little 

article about it. I have got copies in the back of the room. I just 

think it is important. The more people understand how important 

what you all have done for so many people in this country. 

Mr. SMITH. Senators, my name is Gerald M. Smith. I am a farmer and rancher. I am also the Chairman of the North Central Montana RC&D and the Vice President of the Montana Association of 

RC&Ds. 

I agree with everything that I have heard here today. I just 

wanted to call your attention. The RC&D Councils in America, and 

in Montana, are funded through the NRCS and through that conservation part of your farm bill. 

Two years ago we were receiving $15,000 in our little RC&D 

from the Federal Government to maintain our office and pay for 

staff travel. We do 10 counties. Last year it was $11,250. This coming year it is $10,000. 

Everything else is going up and we are going to continue to do 

the best job we can to service those people in those 10 counties. I 

just wanted to call that to your attention. 

There is 435 RC&Ds in the United States. I do not know what 

all of their funding are but in Montana they have reduced down to 

$10,000 per year. So with a big State and nine RC&Ds to cover all 

those counties, I just wanted to call that to your attention and hope 

that you can keep us in mind. 

Senator BAUCUS. Good, Gerald, appreciate that. Thanks, Gerald, 

very much. 

Mr. BARNGROVER. Senator Baucus, Senator Tester, my name is 

Jim Barngrover. I am the Program Manager for Agriculture and 

Food Systems with AERO, the Alternative Energy Resources Organization. 

My first comment, and probably most important, is we need a vision of where we are going with agriculture in the United States. 

35

I think Bob Quinn is right, that we really need to put some money 

into research for sustainable and organic agriculture. It has been 

very limited in terms of what the Federal Government has supported. 

Along with that, we also need to reauthorize ATTRA which is affiliated NCAT in Butte. Their appropriations have been substantially curtailed, they have laid off people, reduced hours. 

They provide technological and informational services to sustainable producers throughout the United States. It is not a big budget 

item but it is one that I think is really critical and one that affects 

us here in Montana. 

Along with that, other policies that we would really support as 

AERO are ones that promote locally grown food, and also looking 

at getting food to farmer’s markets, increasing food stamp benefits 

to recipients, farm to college programs or farm to school programs. 

And lastly, we also support reciprocity between Federal and State 

meat inspection. I think that should be a doable one. 

Thank you, very much. 

Senator BAUCUS. Thanks, Jim, very much. Thank you. 

Mr. HEADSTROM. Thank you. My name is Steve Headstrom. I am 

Vice President of the Montana Association of Conservation Districts, a local rancher from Raynesford, Montana. 

I would like to thank you for this opportunity to share the views 

of Montana’s local conservation districts regarding the 2007 Farm 

Bill. 

There are 58 conservation districts in Montana, at least one in 

every county. Similar entities are set up across the country. In the 

U.S. there are nearly 3,000 conservation districts that are helping 

local people conserve land, water, forest, wildlife, and natural resources. 

We share a single mission to coordinate assistance from all available resources, public, private, local, State, and Federal, in an effort to develop locally driven solutions to the natural resource concerns. 

We support voluntary incentive-based programs that represent a 

range of options providing both financial and technical assistance 

to guide landowners in the adoption of conservation practices, including soil, water, and air quality, providing habitat and enhanced 

land management. 

There are several issues we would like to discuss quickly here. 

Number one, working lands focus. MACD supports the highest priority for the conservation title of the farm bill, to focus programs 

and funding on working lands conservation. 

Number two, decline in county EQIP allocations because of special EQIP projects. There has been a reduction in county EQIP allocations because EQIP is spending on special initiatives in Montana. 

While these special projects are laudable goals, CDs are concerned 

that it is coming at the expense of local priorities around the State. 

We would like to see as much EQIP funding as possible distributed 

among the counties to be focused on local priorities. 

The importance of technical assistance as the basis for all conservation efforts. There is a critical need for the adequate funding 

of conservation technical assistance. In order to maximize the effecVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:42 Nov 16, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\38704.TXT SAG2 PsN: SAG2
36

tiveness of financial assistance received by producers, they need 

quality technical assistance. 

In addition, many producers who do not participate in financial 

assistance programs rely on technical help still to ensure that they 

are putting quality practices on the land. It is a combination of the 

two that make America’s conservation and delivery system effective 

and efficient. 

Also, we are concerned with the CSP. We believe that there has 

to be some improvements in that and producers out there need to 

know what the program is calling for before we can even begin to 

sign up. 

We are also interested in the CRP issues because the money does 

not seem to be going into the proper lands. There needs to be some 

redirecting there. 

So thank you very much. 

Senator BAUCUS. Thank you, Steve. 

Mr. HARWOOD. Good afternoon, Senators. My name is Richard T. 

Harwood. I am a farmer in North Central Toole County, which is 

not part of the rain belt in Montana this year. 

I am rising as kind of a heretic right now. I am a member of the 

Grain Growers but they are literally my fallback position, not my 

first choice. 

I would like to see the United States economy, as a whole, improve to the point where farming can get its entire income from 

sales of our products. I think the easiest way to do that is to 

change our tax policy, namely throw out the income tax and go to 

the national sales tax such as currently being proposed by 

fairtax.org. 

It would have a great deal of benefit to agriculture because that 

particular one throws out the estate tax as well, and puts it as part 

of it. 

The Government will always be behind the curve on tax policy 

because the economy simply moves too fast. 

If you took all of the Internal Revenue Service agents and put 

them on the border as Border Patrol, you would probably be able 

to monitor all of the foreign agriculture products coming in under 

COOL and take care of that problem. 

Thank you. 

Senator BAUCUS. Appreciate your thinking out of the box. Thank 

you very much.. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. LIEBERT. I would like to thank Congress for coming to listen 

to the people and the producers, especially you guys because I 

know you get your hands dirty. 

My name is Richard Liebert, third generation rancher and U.S. 

Army Retired. I know you have been around sheep, Max, and I 

know what you do, Jon. So it is important that you are here. In 

fact, I should be on a hot bucking horse swather right now, but I 

think it is good to be in this cool environment, talking to you guys. 

I would like to stress something you have always said, Max. If 

you want to get action, be a member of a producer organization. I 

am a member of Farmers Union, though some of the opinions I 

may express are my own. I am a member of AERO, I have also 

been in the wool growers but I got out of that business. 

37

I have never been in the FFA but I would like to be in the FFE 

club, which is the food, fiber and energy club. That farmers and 

ranchers in the rural electric coops can be members of providing 

energy back into the grid. I think we need a new REA, rural energy 

act. Not a rural electrification act. Because 70 years ago FDR, in 

the midst of the Great Depression, took a bold step and established 

the Rural Electrification Act. It brought a profound change to 

farms and ranches. I think it is that time now. The RUS, the 

USDA and Congress needs to get behind that, and follow along in 

your footsteps with the EQIP program for energy, that you proposed, Senator Baucus. I do not know where that is. 

But I think we need to make a bold step like they did in the 

Great Depression. If they could do it then, we should do it now. 

I understand also about unintended consequences because I also 

ranch. The corn prices are going up, so we create certain consequences. But I think wind, solar, biomass, crushing camelina, 

those things are great. And I think Bob Quinn for all his efforts. 

Finally, we need to get behind this, a rural energy act that all 

of Congress can embrace. I know other staffers are here so they can 

take it back to the other States. 

Finally, I would ask Congress to heed the OMB White House and 

put the money into renewables. Let private investors take the financial risk of investing in coal-fired plants. Let’s put the money 

into renewables and other things we have talked about today. 

So I thank you and I am going to go back to my swather. 

Senator BAUCUS. Thank you, Richard. Actually, I am kind of envious of you, going back to your swather. I appreciate it. 

Ms. HUCKE. Senator Baucus, Senator Tester, my name is Angela 

Hucke and I, too, like your daughter, Senator Tester, am working 

on taking over our family farm with my husband, just outside of 

Geraldine. 

Mr. Baucus, when you were talking about what young people 

need to see an opportunity to expand or an opportunity to come 

back to the farm, we need to be able to expand. And part of the 

problem of being able to expand is the CRP program. 

When Jim said he is not a fan of the CRP program, a lot of the 

people in the room went oh jeez, we have to have CRP. But I am 

not a fan of it either. 

Part of the problem with CRP is it has become a retirement program for older farmers rather than a conservation program. So that 

is one of the problems that I see with young farmers, as well as 

being able to get the funds and what not to be able to expand. 

Senator BAUCUS. Thank you, Angela. 

Mr. MOLINARIO. Good afternoon, Senators. My name is Martin 

Molinario. And together with my wife Tony and son Damon, we 

have a grain farm in Choteau County, Montana raising primarily 

winter wheat and spring wheat. 

I have been a full-time grain producer for over 42 years and I 

can truthfully say I would not be in business today without the 

USDA payments received throughout those years. I know most of 

my neighbors have experienced the same scenario. 

Several situations which have caused these payments to be so 

critical include the Government grain embargoes, poor grain yield 

and low grain prices, a good crop and low grain prices, low grain 

38

yield and good grain prices, and other weather related problems 

such as hail and freeze damage. 

I want to be on record stating too much moisture has never been 

a problem in this farming career. 

I have been waiting to feed the world since the Russian grain 

deals of 1974, hoping for a consistently decent grain price year 

after year. And I am still waiting for that. 

One thing that has been increasing is my operating expenses. 

Fuel and fertilizer prices have more than doubled in recent years, 

and the price of equipment—even used equipment—is outrageous. 

The projections for these major expenses is to increase further. Can 

I plan on the present high grain prices to be here later this month 

and next when I harvest? Or for next year’s crop? The answer is 

no. 

The only time I recall two years in a row of good grain prices was 

1974 and 1975. This present scenario occurs once every 10 to 11 

years and is usually weather-related. 

The recent problems with imported food items, whether it be for 

human or animal consumption, should raise a red flag to the American consumer about food safety and a safe, reliable supply. The 

budgeted amount of funds set aside for U.S. producers is a very, 

very minor sum compared to the whole. And not all of these funds 

are distributed every year. They are cheap insurance to maintain 

our abundant food supply. 

The U.S. consumer does not want to have the same scenario as 

our energy supplies. 

As for the amount of payments I receive, if I have a profit, part 

of those funds go back to the Federal treasury as taxes. What a 

deal for the American public. 

I am not in favor of taking funds from direct payments and place 

them in more conservation programs. These do not work for all producers. For example, I inquired about the EQIP program for conservation tillage or no till farming, which most producers have 

been practicing for years. Since I was already doing this, I did not 

qualify. 

I inquired about the CSP program. About half the farm is in the 

Teton drainage, which may qualify some year, while the other farm 

half is in the Missouri River drainage, which I was told will probably never quality for CSP because of its drainage size. Producers 

with all of their land in the Missouri drainage may never participate in this program. 

In summary, I hope I have explained how important the USDA 

program has been through the years, both in keeping the U.S. producer in business through disastrous times, whatever their cause, 

and supplying the American consumer with a safe and reliable supply of food and fiber. 

This support should be continued and even increased to give 

some relief to increasing expenses which are beyond our control. 

Thank you for this opportunity. 

Senator BAUCUS. Thanks Mark, very much. Appreciate it. Thank 

you, Martin. 

Ms. DAUGHERTY. Senator Baucus, Senator Tester, my name is 

Linda Daugherty. I have been a Ducks Unlimited volunteer for 

39

over 25 years and am currently serving as the Ducks Unlimited 

Montana State Chairman. 

Ducks Unlimited membership is over 700,000 with over 6,500 

members in Montana alone. DU members come from all walks of 

life and many of our most avid members are farmers and ranchers. 

I am here today to talk about the importance of continuing WRP 

and CRP in the 2007 Farm Bill. Since 1990, WRP has restored 

more than 2 million acres of wetlands on marginal farmland, providing critical habitat for waterfowl and many other wildlife species. WRP is integral in helping to offset the 80,000 acres of wetlands that continue to be lost in the U.S. each year. 

WRP has been one of the most successful Federal wetlands conservation programs, providing a voluntary, non-regulatory incentive-based program for private landowners, farmers and ranchers, 

and values of wetlands on their property. 

WRP provides societal benefits such as improved water quality 

and quantity, reduced flood damage, groundwater recharge, and 

enhanced fish and wildlife habitat. 

Producer demand for this program outstrips available funding by 

at least three-to-one. If funding is not provided, Congress is telling 

landowners that being a good steward of the land is less important 

than plowing crops on marginal lands. 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services estimates that 7.8 million 

acres of CRP in the prairie pothole region adds a minimum of 2 

million ducks to the fall flight each year. Most of these acres consist of large contiguous blocks of grassland cover interspersed with 

an abundance of prairie wetlands. Contracts on nearly 6.4 million 

of the 7.8 million acres are set to expire between 2007 and 2010. 

Though it is apparent that CRP is a critical component of the 

landscape, it is currently under threat. As work continues on the 

2007 Farm Bill, it is critical that we promote waterfowl conservation programs that contribute to the economic viability of America’s 

farmers and ranchers and a healthy environment. 

We must also ensure conservation programs provide private 

landowners with viable financial incentives to restore and protect 

large tracts of grasslands and wetlands that benefit North American waterfowl and our landscape. 

I encourage all folks here today, if you feel as I do, to contact 

your Senators and Representatives to let them know your thoughts 

on these important issues. 

In conclusion, I would leave you with this one thought: farm the 

best, conserve the rest. Thank you. 

Senator BAUCUS. Thank you, Linda. 

I remind everybody to please keep your comments two minutes 

out of respect for everybody else who wants to speak. Thank you. 

Mr. LANE. Senators, I am Tom Lane from Livingston, Montana, 

a rancher. 

When this immigration bill did not pass the other day, all of our 

crew except one are all Mexicans. If we lose our Mexican crew, we 

are out of business because we cannot hire any help. We have had 

a terrible time trying to keep everybody going with one thing and 

another until these folks come on the scene. 

I was wondering why a rancher could not bond these fellows, put up the $5,000 apiece or whatever bond would be required that we 

40

will keep these people in our employ and that they will be lawabiding citizens or something to that effect so we are not worried 

about losing these fellows. 

There has got to be something done. I am sorry that the immigration bill went down. I hope it can be resurrected because we 

need them. 

Another thing I was concerned about was the horse slaughter 

bill. We cannot kill horses anymore now. I know what is going to 

happen. You are going to see a lot of those horses out there being 

starved to death. People cannot pay $150, $175, $200 to get them 

slaughtered again—to get them slaughtered once, I meant to say. 

But anyway, it is—something has got to—I do not know what is 

happening in the judges. I see they tore down the bill there with 

the BLM and they went to a lot of trouble with the committees and 

one thing and another. And a judge in Idaho, Windmill or something like that, decided that there is an injunction, he filed an injunction against the BLM enforcing these regulations because some 

environmental group did not think they met the EPA and NEPA 

and all them things. 

The judges are having a lot of sway in what we are having to 

say anymore. And I hope to gosh somebody can rein them in and 

let us get back to business. 

Thank you. 

Senator BAUCUS. Thank you, Tom. 

Mr. SANDERS. Senator Baucus, Senator Tester, my name is Bob 

Sanders. I am the Manager of Conservation Programs with Ducks 

Unlimited and I live in Elliston, Montana. 

I just wanted to underscore our State Chairman, Linda 

Daugherty’s comments regarding the loss of wetlands in the United 

States. Currently, we are losing about 80,000 acres of wetlands annually. We are also losing our native grasslands and possibly CRP 

lands. 

Montana is the third largest duck producer in the Nation. CRP, 

actually one in five ducks in the Nation is produced on CRP lands. 

Very critical habitats for waterfowl as well as a wide variety of upland birds and other wildlife. 

And we all benefit from having wildlife on the landscape, open 

spaces, good water quality, all the benefits that wetlands provide. 

Farm bill programs such as CRP and wetland reserve programs 

provide those for us. 

One of our strongest and our strongest allies in conservation are 

the folks sitting right here, are the ag producers. I think we share 

a common goal of keeping grass on the landscape, especially with 

the ranching community, keeping those landscapes intact and productive. I just encourage you to strongly consider the conservation 

portion of the upcoming farm bill when you pass that legislation. 

Thank you. 

Senator BAUCUS. Thank you, Bob, very much. 

Mr. HUBBARD. My name is Paul Hubbard. I am with the Community Food and Agriculture Coalition in Missoula County. 

If the goals basically here are for people to have healthy foods 

and for farms and ranches to be viable businesses, then I would 

hope this farm bill would approach them not as separate goals but 

as the same goal. And that is if we can build more of a regional 

41

and local food economy, then we all win. Farms and ranches retain 

more of the food dollar. As you know, more and more of the food 

dollar goes towards marketing and transportation. And consumers 

get a much healthier product. 

So an example of that specifically is Farm–To–School. Missoula 

County has piloted this project. Kids are getting local food in their 

school meals and they are eating more fruits and vegetables. And 

it is coming straight from Montana farms and ranches. So it is a 

win-win situation. 

Another example is, as you guys are sitting in D.C., seeing Japanese beef on the menu, most of the time when I go to a restaurant 

in Montana, people look at me cross-eyed when I ask where the 

beef is from. It is very difficult to get a Montana burger here. That 

is because we lack infrastructure. 

In bringing the consumer and the producer close together, as 

close as we can—obviously, we will have to export plenty—but the 

closer we can bring them the better. And looking at the infrastructure specifically is a place where we lack. 

Yet it is also an opportunity because we do not have to go to 

these Smithfield-esque just enormous operations that, unfortunately, plague many communities in the Midwest, North Carolina, 

where fertilizer basically becomes a pollutant. We can look more at 

community-based systems, what type of infrastructure will help our 

communities in bringing the consumer and producer closer together. 

Senator BAUCUS. Thank you, Paul. 

Mr. NOLAN. Good afternoon, Senator Baucus, Senator Tester. My 

name is Jim Nolan from the State Department of Public Health 

and Human Services. 

I just wanted to call to your attention a draft proposal that 

USDA is floating that they would like to have included in the farm 

bill that would drastically alter the way they fund one of our major 

nutrition programs, the food distribution program on Indian reservations. 

Our initial analysis of the proposal would indicate a cut of about 

40 percent for Montana. Although I am not too concerned that that 

language will not get in the farm bill, I am concerned that even if 

it does not they will try to do this administratively, a course they 

have already undertaken. 

This program serves about 3,000 families a month and we would 

ask for help in making sure it does not happen. 

Thank you. 

Senator BAUCUS. Thank you, Jim. 

Ms. HOLLINGSWORTH. Hi, I am Marcia Hollingsworth. I live on 

a farm/ranch operation. I also sit on a national committee called 

CARET, Council for Agriculture Research Extension and Teaching. 

We are about to celebrate the 4th of July. Years ago I was talking with different people and they mentioned to me how democracy 

is directly connected with ag, this makes me a wreck. 

But anyway, I do feel that our national security depends upon a 

strong agricultural system. Agriculture is our food security and I 

think in years to come will soon be our energy security. 

I would like you to play close attention to the research and education title in the farm bill. I think it is extremely important to 

42

keep our land grants strong to address the needs here in Montana. 

We support the formula funding and I do ask that there be increases there to keep up with the pace of inflation. 

The land grant to Montana, I think, is an essential partner in 

keeping this industry a strong and viable industry. 

Thank you. 

Senator BAUCUS. Thanks, Marcia, very much. 

Mr. MEYERS. Senator Baucus, Senator Tester, thank you for 

holding the field hearing here in Great Falls and the opportunity 

to talk to you. I am Larry Myers. I am from Glasgow, Montana. 

I am with Two Rivers Economic Growth. I currently serve as the 

Executive Director for St. Mary Rehabilitation Working Group. 

Three months ago, the Bush Administration proposed its new farm bill for 2007. And in it had a $1.75 billion 10-year cooperative 

conservation program called the Regional Water Enhance Program, 

RWEP. It is aimed at improving water quality and water conservation on working agricultural lands on a regional scale. 

This program is included in the redesigned EQIP program or 

EQIP, as we know it today. 

I would like to encourage you to take good strong considerations 

of this, as it appears to have some benefits to all of us in Montana 

dealing with water. We either have too much or we do not have 

enough or whatever. 

Senator BAUCUS. It is usually not enough. 

Mr. MEYERS. Unless it comes in a rather large quantity like it 

did in Valley County on June 16th, which is another issue. 

Anyway, dealing with and working with the Family Farm Alliance, which is a grass roots organizations for family farmers, 

ranchers, irrigation districts over the 16 Western States, this 

project or program seems to have some benefits but there are some 

cautions that we have identified that need to be considered. 

One of them is administrative costs associated with any work 

performed by the NRCS should be capped at a reasonable level. 

The second one is the role of the Bureau of Reclamation and how 

that agency coordinates with NRCS and the implementation of this 

program in Western States must be thought out thoroughly and 

should be complemented and coordinated philosophy. 

And then number three, limitations should be established to ensure that these monies truly benefit agriculture and not urban municipalities with relative token amounts of agricultural lands or 

hobby farms within their boundaries. 

The fourth thing for consideration, the program should provide 

assurances that the intent is not to reallocate water away from agriculture. It must also recognize the traditional differences of Federal agencies to State water allocation systems. 

Lastly, the thing that I would like you to encourage considering 

in the farm bill, and it has been mentioned here by the panel, is 

some kind of a permanent disaster fund. And I think that is echoed 

timely with what happened in Glasgow and Valley County. 

Thank you very much. 

Senator BAUCUS. Thank you, Larry, very much. Thank you. 

Mr. OMLAND. Senator Baucus, Senator Tester, my name is Rich 

Omland. I serve as the Bishop of the Montana Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, the largest Protestant denomiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:42 Nov 16, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\38704.TXT SAG2 PsN: SAG2
43

nation in Montana. Along with our brothers and sisters in the 

Montana Association of Churches, the Roman Catholic communities, and other Protestant groups, thank you for being here today. 

Many of our members and our congregations are in rural communities and small towns all across the State and all across the Nation. So we have a heart in what is going on in this bill. 

A couple of things I want to just say. First of all, to all the producers, the women and men in this community who are a part of 

the caretaking of the soil and the land of this good earth. That is 

part of what God is up to and we thank you for your participation 

in that. Hopefully you see that bigger picture that goes on. 

Secondly, we want to just continue to remind our Government 

and remind our producers to have a heart for the poor and the 

folks that we produce food for. We think that is terribly important 

and we want to encourage you to think about how those resources 

are allocated, that we not forget the least among us. 

We thank you folks who work in agriculture on all of our behalfs. 

And gentlemen, thank you for being here, as well. 

Senator BAUCUS. Thank you, Richard, very much. 

That is a good finish, a good summary. 

Thank everybody for coming. 

Before we adjourn here I just want to again thank those from the 

Agriculture Committee who are here. Also, everybody here at the 

Civic Center who has helped make this room possible. A lot of people behind the scenes make a lot of things happen. 

Again, thank all the folks that came, the witnesses, everybody 

who stood up to speak. It is all very, very important. It is part of 

the larger mosaic and it will help, I know, Senator Tester and certainly help me and other members of the Ag Committee as to what 

to do next as we put together this farm bill. 

Thank everybody, very much. I might add, too, that if you have 

written statements you want to add, or additional statements, additional testimony, additional points that you may have, you can 

mail them to Brandon Willis. Brandon, can you please stand? 

This is Brandon Willis. He is my ace top hand in agriculture. He 

does a great job. His e-mail address is brandon—

willis@baucus.senate.gov. 

The hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, the Committee was adjourned.] 

(45)

A P P E N D I X

JULY 2, 2007

(47)

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

JULY 2, 2007

48


38704.001
49


38704.002
50


38704.003
51


38704.004
52


38704.005
53


38704.006
54


38704.007
55


38704.008
56


38704.009
57


38704.010
58


38704.011
59


38704.012
60


38704.013
61


38704.014
62


38704.015
63


38704.016
64


38704.017
65


38704.018
66


38704.019
67


38704.020
68


38704.021
69


38704.022
70


38704.023
71


38704.024
72


38704.025
73


38704.026
74


38704.027
75


38704.028
76


38704.029
77


38704.030
78


38704.031
79


38704.032
80


38704.033
81


38704.034
82


38704.035
83


38704.036
84


38704.037
85


38704.038
86


38704.039
87


38704.040
88


38704.041
89


38704.042
90


38704.043
91


38704.044
92


38704.045
93


38704.046
94


38704.047
95


38704.048
96


38704.049
97


38704.050
98


38704.051
99


38704.052
100


38704.053
101


38704.054
102


38704.055
103


38704.056
104


38704.057
105


38704.058
106


38704.059
107


38704.060
108


38704.061
109


38704.062
110


38704.063
111


38704.064
112


38704.065
113


38704.066
114


38704.067
115


38704.068
116


38704.069
117


38704.070
118


38704.071
119


38704.072
120


38704.073