(Page 1) TO: SENATOR DOLE FROM: DAVE SPEARS SUBJECT: MEETING WITH KLA (KANSAS LIVESTOCK ASSN.) ATTACHED IS A SUMMARY OF KLA KEY ISSUES FOR YOUR MEETING WITH THE KLA BOARD OF DIRECTORS ON TUESDAY AT 4:30 P.M. THE TOP THREE ISSUES ARE: - FARM POLICY (DAIRY AMENDMENTS) - OPPOSE INCREASES IN MILK PRICE SUPPORT. - Z-BAR RANCH - OPPOSE THE PLAN AND FEEL THE FLINT HILLS IS PRESERVED BY PRIVATE LANDOWNERS - CLEAN WATER ACT - OPPOSE BURDENSOME RESTRICTIONS AND REGULATIONS. KLA REPRESENTATIVES ATTENDING ARE: DON SMITH, NCA PRESIDENT TRIBUNE DANA HAUCK, KLA PRESIDENT DELPHOS LEE BORCK, KLA PRESIDENT - ELECT LARNED WARREN WEIBERT, KLA PAST PRESIDENT OBERLIN MARC ROTH, CHAIRMAN, FEEDLOT DIVISION ULYSSES JON FERGUSON, CHAIRMAN, COW -CALF/STOCKER DIVISION KENSINGTON RON HOLLAND, CHAIRMAN, PUREBRED DIVISION OSAGE CITY MAX DEETS, NCA BOARD MEMBER BELOIT JACK FRICK, COMMITTEE MEMBER SCOTT CITY LYLE GRAY, COMMITTEE MEMBER LEON MIKE BEAM, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, COW - CALF/STOCKER DIVISION STAFF RICH McKEE, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, FEEDLOT DIVISON STAFF NOTE: LYLE GRAY, IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT OF KLA AND CURRENT PRESIDENT OF FARM CREDIT BANKS OF WICHITA IS SEEKING THE NOMINATION OF THE FCA (FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATION) BOARD MEMBER. THIS IS THE POSITION THAT JOHN DATT JUST WITHDREW HIS NAME FROM CONSIDERATION. I PLAN TO VISIT PRIVATELY WITH LYLE IN DETAIL ABOUT THE POSITION AND HIS PLANS. (Page 2) Summary of Key Issues Kansas Livestock Association April 15-16, 1991 Clean Water Act: Agricultural operators, specifically livestock producers, have much at stake when Congress acts on the Clean Water Act. There will likely be attempts to place burdensome restrictions and regulations on our nation's farmers, ranchers and feedlot operations. KLA urges our lawmakers to be cautious of such proposals and protect the private property rights. Flint Hills Prairie National Monument: The National Park Service has conducted a study on a proposal to make the 10,894 acre Z-Bar Ranch In Chase County a property of the Federal Government. Landowners in the Flint Hills region are opposed to the plan. KLA feels the chance of a Park Service expansion is likely in the future and the Flint Hills is best preserved by private landowners. IRS Treatment of Losses From Legitimate Hedges: Several cattlemen are facing substantial tax liabilities because the Internal Revenue Service refuses to treat certain commodity future losses as a legitimate business expense. KLA, Texas Cattle Feeders Association, and the National Cattlemen's Association are trying to convince IRS to re-write their regulations and recognize modern risk management strategies (Including the use of options) as legitimate hedges. Commercial Drivers License: KLA Is supportive of regulatory relief or legislation to clarify that custom livestock operations qualify for the agriculture exemption. KLA urges members of Congress to support H.R. 1516 and S. 715, as both propose to address this concern. Private Property Rights Act: S. 50 and H.R. 1572 have been introduced to set in law President Reagan's "takings" Executive Order (E.O. 12630). These bills will remind federal agencies that actions which restrict the use or value of private property could result in a "taking" for which financial compensation by due process is required. KLA and NCA urges the Kansas Congressional Delegation to sponsor and support these proposals. Farm Policy (Dairy Amendments): KLA supports a market oriented Farm Bill. Increasing the milk price support provisions will likely send the wrong signal to dairy producers and cause over production. This increases the pressure for a future dairy buy-out or diversion. The market should be the factor for culling the dairy herd. KLA is opposed to increasing the milk price support. (Page 3) KANSAS LIVESTOCK ASSOCIATION NCA BOARD OF DIRECTORS Dana Hauck, KLA President Delphos, Kansas Lee Borck, KLA President-Elect Larned, Kansas Warren Weibert, KLA Past President Oberlin, Kansas Marc Roth, Chairman, Feedlot Division Ulysses, Kansas Jon Ferguson, Chairman, Cow-Calf/Stocker Division Kensington, Kansas Ron Holland, Chairman, Purebred Division Osage City, Kansas Max Deets, NCA Board Member Beloit, Kansas Jack Frick, NCA Board Member Scott City, Kansas Lyle Gray, NCA Board Member Leon, Kansas Don Smith, NCA President Tribune, Kansas KANSAS LIVESTOCK ASSOCIATION STAFF Mike Beam, Executive Secretary, Cow-Calf/Stocker Division Rich Mckee, Executive Secretary, Feedlot Division NCA BREED AFFILIATE *Larry Heidebrecht, President American Polled Hereford Association *May attend some of the meetings. (Page 4) Summary of Key Issues Kansas Livestock Association April 15-16, 1991 Clean Water Act: Agricultural operators, specifically livestock producers, have much at stake when Congress acts on the Clean Water Act. There will likely be attempts to place burdensome restrictions and regulations on our nation's farmers, ranchers and feedlot operations. KLA urges our lawmakers to be cautious of such proposals and protect the private property rights. Flint Hills Prairie National Monument: The National Park Service has conducted a study on a proposal to make the 10,894 acre Z-Bar Ranch in Chase County a property of the Federal Government. Landowners in the Flint Hills region are opposed to the plan. KLA feels the chance of a Park Service expansion is likely in the future and the Flint Hills is best preserved by private landowners. IRS Treatment of Losses From Legitimate Hedges: Several cattlemen are facing substantial tax liabilities because the Internal Revenue Service refuses to treat certain commodity future losses as a legitimate business expense. KLA, Texas Cattle Feeders Association, and the National Cattlemen's Association are trying to convince IRS to re-write their regulations and recognize modern risk management strategies (including the use of options) as legitimate hedges. Commercial Drivers License: KLA is supportive of regulatory relief or legislation to clarify that custom livestock operations qualify for the agriculture exemption. KLA urges members of Congress to support H.R. 1516 and S. 715, as both propose to address this concern. Private Property Rights Act: S. 50 and H.R. 1572 have been introduced to set in law President Reagan's "takings" Executive Order (E.O. 12630). These bills will remind federal agencies that actions which restrict the use or value of private property could result in a "taking" for which financial compensation by due process is required. KLA and NCA urges the Kansas Congressional Delegation to sponsor and support these proposals. Farm Policy (Dairy Amendments): KLA supports a market oriented Farm Bill. Increasing the milk price support provisions will likely send the wrong signal to dairy producers and cause over production. This increases the pressure for a future dairy buy-out or diversion. The market should be the factor for culling the dairy herd. KLA is opposed to increasing the milk price support. (Page 5) KLA/NCA POSITION PAPERS INDEX The Beef Industry State of Industry Private Lands & Environmental Management Flint Hills Prairie National Monument Fort Riley Expansion Clean Water Act Endangered Species Methane Emissions from Ruminants Takings order & Private Property Rights Act Wetlands Protection American Heritage Trust "Billion Dollar Trust Fund" Tax Credit Legitimate Hedges Budget Cutting/Tax Increase Options/Capital Gains IRS May Require Filing of Form 1099B OSHA Agricultural Exemptions Marketing Commercial Drivers License CFTC Reauthorization Industry Concentration & Cattle Price Surveillance 1990 Farm Bill Food Policy Dietary Fat Reduction Initiative: Project LEAN National Nutrition Labeling & Education Act Update of SDA Handbook 8-13, "The Nutrient Composition of Beef" Foreign Trade European Community Ban on Use of Growth Hormones Fast Track Negotiating Authority Uruguay Round - Multilateral Trade Negotiations - GATT (Page 6) Fact Sheet National Cattlemen's Association Denver Headquarters P.O. Box 3469 Englewood, Colorado 80155 #(303) 694-0305 Government Affairs 1301 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20004-1701 (202) 347-0228 April, 1991 THE BEEF INDUSTRY Agriculture is the nation's largest industry, with assets totaling more than $700 billion. The nation's food and fiber system accounts for more than 15% of the gross national product. The cattle industry is the largest segment of American agriculture, Annual sales of cattle and calves in 1989 totaled $36.7 billion, or 79% of total U.S. cash receipts from marketings of meat animals. Sales of cattle account for almost 25% of total receipts from farm marketings. Sales of cattle include beef cattle and also dairy animals culled from herds or not used in milk production. There are approximately 1.1 million farms and ranches with beef cattle. These units range from part-time cattle operators with only a few animals to large commercial units with hundreds or thousands of animals. Agriculture and the cattle industry are important to other segments of the American economy as well. For every job on the farm, there are six jobs in related supply and processing businesses. Every dollar of cattle sales directly generates an additional $5-6 of business activity in the farm supply, food and other businesses. Twenty-one million persons work in some phase of the agriculture and food business. The cattle industry has three major phases: (1) Farmers and ranchers who own the basic herds and produce feeder or breeding cattle; (2) stocker operators whose pastures put additional weight on feeder cattle prior to entering feedlots; (3) cattle feeders who finish cattle in feedlots for marketing. Most retail cuts of beef come from grain-fed cattle. Prices received by cattlemen are determined strictly by supply and demand at the time of sale. The cattle business is not a margin-added business in which margins are added to costs of materials, as in conventional manufacturing or merchandising businesses. The continued availability of beef at relatively favorable prices for consumers has been made possible by the efficiency of modern beef production, with its scientific technology and increased mechanization. Output per man-hour in agriculture has increased almost twice as fast as in manufacturing industries. The beef cattle industry is important, in part, because it converts otherwise wasted resources into essential protein and other nutrients for humans. Eighty-five percent of the feed consumed by beef cattle in the U.S. comes from forage, roughages and by-products not edible by man. The grain that is fed to cattle is not food grain; it is feed grain, like field corn and grain sorghum. -over- (Page 7) -2- Fifty percent of the land area of the world, including about half of the land in the U.S., is classified as grazing or range land --- land which cannot be used to produce cultivated crops. Without ruminant (four-stomach) animals like cattle, this land would go to waste as a renewable resource for food production. Ruminants, with their ability to digest cellulose (which makes up three-fourths of the world's plant material), offer the only way to harvest food from the billions of acres of land which is too rough, too dry, too wet, or too infertile to produce crops. About one third of the nation's beef supply is accounted for by the feeding segment of the business. Without feedlots and the efficiency with which they put pounds of gain on animals, beef production in the U.S. would be much smaller. Without feedlots, the cow herd would have to be smaller, in order to accommodate the cattle being finished on range and pasture. This would mean a smaller basic herd. Also, the beef supply would be much more seasonal and less uniform. And, with a smaller supply, beef would be more expensive. These economic advantages of feeding are in addition to the palatability and eating satisfaction which feeding contributes. Cattle are fed in order to produce a more desirable product more efficiently, not just to use grain. Average per capita supplies of beef on a retail weight basis were about 67.5 lbs. in 1990. This converts, in turn, to approximately 50 lbs. of cooked, edible beef and processed beef consumed per person per year. On a daily basis, this amounts to only about 2.3 oz. per day, or considerably less than the 3 to 6 oz. of meat recommended by the U.S. Department of Agriculture as the daily allowance. -0- (Page 8) Fact Sheet National Cattlemen's Association Denver Headquarters P.O. Box 3469 # Englewood, Colorado 80155 (303) 694-0305 Government Affairs 1301 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Suite 300 # Washington, D.C. 20004-1701 # (202) 347-0228 January, 1991 STATE OF THE INDUSTRY Operations in all segments of the cattle industry generally remained profitable in 1990. Cattle prices increased to record high levels during the year. Excluding increased fuel and energy costs, production costs remained relatively flat. Steer calf prices (550-1b.) averaged more than $95/cwt. in 1990, and yearling feeder steer prices averaged almost $85. Fed steer prices averaged more than $78. Total cattle slaughter in 1990 declined by 2%. Most of the decline was in cow slaughter. Beef production decreased by 1%. Average per capita beef supplies (and consumption) in 1990 were almost 68 lbs. (retail weight), compared to 69 lbs. in 1989. Demand for beef improved in spite of an increase in total meat supplies. The decline in beef output and a 3% decline in pork production were offset by a 7% increase in poultry output. Increases in beef prices have been attributed to the decrease in supplies and to product improvements, including closer trimming of fat by retailers; checkoff-funded information and promotion programs; and increases in exports. The average retail price of Choice beef in 1990 was an estimated $2.79 pound. That compares to $2.66 in 1989. Domestic spending for beef increased by $2 billion in total for 1990. Spending was up 3% on a per capita basis. The improvement in demand for beef has come mostly in rib and loin cuts, which supply the more desirable steaks and roasts. Chuck and round cuts, which are generally less tender and less convenient to prepare, have not shown the same improvement. With profitability in the industry, there was some expansion in the cow herd and total cattle numbers. However, expansion remained slow. Drought in western states and low heifer retention limited herd growth. The total cattle herd was an estimated 100.5 million head on Jan. 1, 1991, compared to 99.3 million a year earlier. Cow slaughter in 1991 is not expected to decline significantly from 1990, but more heifers are likely to be retained by producers. Improvements in moisture conditions will be needed if herd growth is to be maintained. Because of improvements in production efficiency, a basic cattle herd of approximately 100 million head has produced just about as much beef (22.7 billion pounds, carcass weight, in 1990) as a herd of 120 million produced in the late 1970's. For each cow in the breeding herd, the industry produced 520 lbs. of beef in 1990, compared to 449 lbs. in 1980. The increase results from increases in animal size and in the amount of lean meat per carcass, as well as faster animal growth and more rapid turnover in feedlots. -over- (Page 9) -2- Total beef production in 1991 is expected to be equal to or greater than production in 1990. Average per capita supplies will be about the same as in 1990. Average prices of cattle and beef should be similar to 1990 price levels. The current industry situation and outlook are generally positive. Domestic demand improvement should continue. Exports may decline slightly in 1991, but they still will be substantial. Exports of beef have grown from less than 1/2% of U.S. output in 1980 to 5% in 1990. -0- (Page 10) Alt Text: outline of Kansas Kansas Livestock Association 6031 S.W. 37th Street - Topeka, Kansas 66614-5128 - Telephone: (913) 273-5115 FAX: (913) 273-3399 Owns and Publishes The Kansas STOCKMAN magazine and KLA NEWS & Market Report newsletter. April 1991 Issue: Flint Hills Prairie National Monument Background: Nearly three years ago a proposal was launched to have the National Park Service (NPS) acquire the 10,894 acre Z-Bar Ranch (also known as the Spring Hill Ranch) and create a Flint Hills Prairie National Monument. This ranch is held in trust and managed by the Boatman's First National Bank in Kansas City. The national Audubon Society acquired an option to purchase the ranch in 1988 but the option expired in July of 1990. The Audubon Society's monument proposal became public in January of 1989. Since then, city governing bodies in Strong City, Cottonwood Falls, Emporia and Council Grove have acted in support of the government acquisition plan. Some business people in these towns feel a National Monument would attract many tourists and provide an economic boost to the rural community. Beginning in January of 1990 the National Park Service started a "significant study" to: 1. Determine the historic importance of the ranch property, 2. Evaluate the diversity and condition of the ranch's tall grass prairie and 3. Develop alternatives in long-term management of the property. Status: The study is expected to be finalized April or May of 1991. On April 4, 1991, Kansas Congressman Dan Glickman announced the NPS study concluded the Z-Bar Ranch "exhibits a high degree of national significance". Furthermore, Congressman Glickman announced his plans to introduce legislation creating a Flint Hills Prairie National Monument as a part of the NPS. he stated his legislation will protect adjacent landowners by prohibiting condemnation of property or forced sales of any kind. (Page 11) KLA Position: The Kansas Livestock Association strongly opposes the federal purchase of the Z-Bar Ranch. Since the 1970's, there have been several proposals to place a portion of the tall grass prairie, particularly the Flint Hills in Kansas, in the hands of the federal government. Once the Z-Bar Ranch is acquired by the government it could easily be expanded in the future and take thousands of acres out of the hands of private citizens. The federal government already owns 727 million acres (one-third of all land) in the United States and is currently in debt. KLA believes the Z-Bar Ranch and all agriculture land should remain in private hands. Generations of farmers and ranchers have tended this land and preserved it for future generations. (Page 12) Alt Text: outline of Kansas Kansas Livestock Association 6031 S.W. 37th Street - Topeka, Kansas 66614-5128 - Telephone: (913) 273-5115 FAX: (913) 273-3399 Owns and Publishes The Kansas STOCKMAN magazine and KLA NEWS & Market Report newsletter. April 1991 Issue: Fort Riley Expansion Background: In 1989, military personnel revealed the Army would like to acquire 100,000 to 125,000 acres for expanding the 1st Infantry Division (Mech) at Fort Riley in Geary county. At that time the target was the land area south of 1-70 and between state highway 177 and U.S. Highway 77. A group of landowners, residents and business people in the Geary county area formed an organization to fight the land acquisition/expansion proposal. This group is called "Preserve the Flint Hills". Later, a second group North of the Fort organized and are called "Preserve Rural America". On March 30, 1990 military officials announced they had identified four new land areas that would be acceptable expansion sites for new training grounds. These sites are approximately 80,000 acres each and located in Chase, Clay, Dickinson, Lincoln, Morris, Marion, Mitchell and Ottawa counties. A coalition of nine groups have formed "Preserve Kansas: Our Land ... Our Lives" to monitor this issue and express opposition to any land expansion plans. Status: On September 13, 1990, Deputy Secretary of Defense Atwood issued a memorandum announcing a moratorium on major land acquisition for military bases. This announcement called for a halt of land acquisition proposals, notice of intent to perform environmental analysis, or other official notice without the approval of the Secretary or the Deputy Secretary of Defense. To date, no announcement has been made for the granting of a waiver on the Ft. Riley expansion plans. KLA Position: The Kansas Livestock Association is opposed to additional federal land acquisition and specifically is opposed to any land expansion of Fort Riley. Several hundred rural families will be displaced and area agriculture businesses will be severely impacted by an extensive land acquisition move. This issue is placing many family farms, ranches and rural businesses in limbo and making it difficult to make any plans for the near future. Now is the time for Congress to say "no" to further military land expansion. (Page 13) Fact Sheet National Cattlemen's Association Denver Headquarters P.O. Box 3469 # Englewood, Colorado 80155 #(303) 694-0305 Government Affairs 1301 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Suite 300 # Washington, D.C. 20004-1701 (202) 347-0228 April, 1991 ISSUE: The Clean Water Act (CWA) The U.S. Congress will reauthorize the Clean Water Act this year. As renewed, this major environmental law could mean new regulatory controls affecting all of agriculture and every segment of cattle production. SUMMARY: EPA's recent National Water Quality Inventory claims that agricultural run-off is responsible for over 50% of all surface water pollution in the U.S. This report claims that approximately 25% of total surface water pollution derives from livestock waste. EPA, national environmental organizations and some in Congress want this Clean Water Act to focus on agriculture and particularly non-point" source run-off from agriculture as the highest risks remaining to U.S. water quality. EPA claims that "point source" pollution from industry and municipal sewage treatment plants is largely under control. Proposals for new CWA legislation now circulating include stiffer NPDES requirements for confined feeding operations, regulatory land and water use restrictions to prevent non-point source pollution throughout watersheds with any "impaired" waters and stricter wetlands protection. BACKGROUND: The CWA's formal name is the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. CWA was first enacted in 1972 and last reauthorized in 1987 (with two presidential vetos finally overridden.) Like the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Clean Air Act and other "big" environmental laws written in the early 1970's, the CWA is a lengthy, comprehensive, complex, technical statute. CWA covers water pollution and water quality from many angles including point, non-point source, groundwater, surface water (lakes, rivers, streams, estuaries) and now wetlands. Through citizen law suits initiated by environmental organizations in the last 10 years, the CWA's definition of "waters of the U.S." now includes wetlands of any size and location. It is the controversial Section 404 of the Clean Water Act that authorizes EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to regulate activities that affect wetlands. Other than the NPDES (National Pollution Elimination Discharge System) permits required of feedlots with capacity for 1000 head or more, the CWA's focus has been municipal sewage treatment and "toxic"," point source" industrial discharges. There is now interest from many sides to extend the scope and regulatory control of CWA to agricultural run-off. Recent surveys by EPA show nationally overall greater levels of nitrates above Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCL's) than agricultural chemicals. EPA has proposed increased regulatory control in the following areas that affect cattle production: 1) Additional requirements and fees for the current National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits for confined animal feeding operations. 2) Greater enforcement authority for feedlot permits. (EPA claims 5000 feedlots are not in compliance with NPDES requirements.) 3) Require NPDES permits for all confined feeding operations 100 -300 head or larger. 4) Require permits for manure storage and disposal. 5) Permitted nutrient management plans for any application of manure for fertilizer. (over) (Page 14) 6) Require permits for irrigation return flows. 7) Mandatory fencing (of cattle from) streams, riparian areas, and wetlands (particularly in "high risk" watersheds.) 8) Expand Section 404 on wetlands to include (besides dredge and fill) restrictions on any alteration of wetland function or degradation of wetland water quality. 9) Include water quantity issues (EPA calls them "dry weather flows") in the CWA, emphasizing water conservation and perhaps new water pricing. 10) Establish national water quality standards to protect "habitat", "ecosystem", and "biological diversity" for non-point sources. (Standards now are to protect public health and safety for designated human uses.) 11) Target resources and enforcement to critical watersheds, i.e. those identified by states with most actual or potential water quality problems. 12) Establish Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL) for non-point source "pollutants" (including sediment) in all impaired watersheds. 13) Increase EPA authority to leverage state action while maintaining general federal - state relations as CWA now stipulates. 14) Use new economic incentives to motivate and pay for water quality protection. (EPA lists deposits, bounties, fines, fees, taxes, user fees, changes in subsidies as possible incentives). These are hardly the market-based approach advocated by others. STATUS: No legislation has been introduced or surfaced in draft form. Initial background hearings with testimony from EPA were held in late March. The committees of primary jurisdiction for CWA are the Senate Environment and Public Works and the House Public Works and Transportation Committee. The Senate is expected to move first and may introduce a bill within the next month. As separate legislation, Rep. Jimmy Hayes (D-LA) introduced H.R. 1330, The Comprehensive Wetlands Conservation and Management Act which would thoroughly revise Section 404 of CWA on wetlands in terms far more realistic and protective of private property rights than current law or federal "no net loss" policy. ACTION: NCA is working closely with other national agricultural organizations. The coalition is asking USDA to help provide detailed information on the many programs in existence that address protection of water quality. Agricultural producers need USDA's help to educate Congress about the effectiveness of voluntary, cost share, technical assistance based programs. NCA seeks the assistance of states in collecting information about state programs and in assessing accuracy of EPA's claims about agriculturally derived water problems. NCA believes the Hayes bill, H.R. 1330, needs some changes to cover the specific issues of wetlands on pasture, range and haylands and is working to include these modifications in the bill. *USDA is sponsoring a National Livestock, Poultry, and Aquaculture Waste Management Priorities Workshop in Kansas City, July 28-31, 1991. ### (Page 15) Fact Sheet National Cattlemen's Association Denver Headquarters P.O. Box 3469 - Englewood, Colorado 80155 - (303) 694-0305 Government Affairs 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Suite 300 - Washington, D.C. 20004-1701 - (202) 347-0228 April, 1991 ISSUE: Endangered Species SUMMARY: Ranchers, farmers, and entire communities are becoming increasingly aware of the inflexibility and serious impact of the Endangered Species Act (ESA.) The heated controversy around federal protection of the northwestern spotted owl - an only threatened sub-species - has brought endangered species to the mainstream. Even though likely to eliminate from 10,000 - 40,000 jobs, the federal government will proceed to protect the owl with only minor adjustments for human impacts. The listing, proposed listing, or recovery plans for a growing number of species (including plants) directly impacts cattlemen as grazing is frequently viewed as threat to species or its habitat. Among these species which most impact cattle production currently at issue are: gray wolf, Mexican wolf, grizzly bear, desert tortoise, black footed ferrets, sockeye salmon, and a number of plants including little Aguja pondweed. The U.S. Congress will reauthorize the ESA next year. BACKGROUND: Enacted by Congress in 1973, the ESA has over the years become a powerful law for control of land use. Although challenged many times in the courts, the inflexibility of the ESA to balance human costs and rights has been largely upheld. The Supreme Court decided in Tennessee Valley Authority vs. Hill that priority consideration must be given to the threatened and endangered species before economic and human costs. Endangered species tend to occur on pasture range, and forested ground because these are relatively unmanipulated environments. The laws prohibition against habitat modification of listed species interferes in principle with cattle production, potentially curtailing grazing as well as any other land uses such as timber harvesting and mineral exploration. Recovery plans also required for listed species can impose legally binding standards and regulation. Cattlemen should participate in the Listing Process if the proposed species could involve his property. Listing is to be established on the best scientific and commercial evidence available but currently there are no safeguards to insure that the evidence is objective, documented, and legally obtained. The ESA also authorizes land acquisition both voluntarily and by condemnation. However, a graver threat is the potential land devaluation if protection of a species restricts or prohibits grazing on land where grazing is the only economic use. Lenders could be hesitant to accept as collateral property with such restrictions or even with their likelihood. Secretary of the Interior, Manuel Lujan, has stated that the EPA needs to include more consideration of economic factors. Yet the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) which implements the law has not shown any willingness to address this and other problematic issues. (over) (Page 16) STATUS: The USFWS now lists approximately 600 species as threatened or endangered. The Service lists more than 3500 additional species as candidates for listing. The Inspector General and several law suits claim USFWS is not listing species fast enough. Cattlemen should consult both lists and determine whether they could be affected. Landowners are not always notified when a listing occurs. Issues of particular concern to cattlemen this year include reintroduction of the gray wolf in Yellowstone and the recovery plan for the grizzly bear. Recent tentative listing of the sockeye salmon could create major problems as has the spotted owl. ACTION: NCA has an Endangered Species and Wildlife Subcommittee to address this growing issue and is preparing guidelines to assist cattlemen to participate in the listing and recovery planning processes. With a coalition NCA is now working on amendments for next year's reauthorization of the ESA and will ask Congress for oversight hearings on past implementation of the law. NCA also will explore the possibility of positive incentives for private protection of certain animal or plant species such that the species never needs to be listed nor the federal law to be invoked. ### (Page 17) Fact Sheet National Cattlemen's Association Denver Headquarters P.O. Box 3469 - Englewood, Colorado 80155 - (303) 694-0305 Government Affairs 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Suite 300 - Washington, D.C. 20004-1701 - (202) 347-0228 April, 1991 ISSUE: Methane Emissions from Ruminants BACKGROUND: The prospect of "global warming" has become a major environmental issue. Global warming may occur, some scientists claim, as a result of increased concentration of certain gases in the atmosphere which may slow the rate at which heat escapes from the earth. Increased accumulation of these gases may produce a "greenhouse effect" by blocking the normal dissipation of heat. These "greenhouse" gases are predominately carbon dioxide with trace gases including methane. Total annual global methane emission is approximately 15 - 18% of all greenhouse gases. Sources of methane include, in order of decreasing importance: burning of petroleum, forests, coal mining, natural gas and oil extraction, rice paddies, and ruminant production. Cattle and other ruminants do emit methane as a result of their digestive process. However U.S. beef cattle produce only 0.5 percent of annual global methane emissions and a minute 0.1 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions according to recent technical studies. 90% of methane is from regurgitation; 10% is from flatulence. STATUS: However insignificant is U.S. cattle's role in potential global warming, considerable attention is now addressed to this issue by federal agencies, U.S. Congress, major media, and the environmental movement. USDA and EPA have conducted two major international conferences on methane emissions from agricultural systems. The second conference issued an extensive report with formal recommendations for policy and legislation. The report urges research and action to reduce methane emissions from cattle including forage supplementation, higher energy feedlot rations, use of growth promotants, and changes in meat grading to reward leaner carcasses. An inappropriate amount of concern is directed to U.S. beef cattle because the "experts" claim methane emission reduction can be more rapidly reduced in the U.S. than in other countries. Yet U.S. beef cattle produce far less methane per animal unit and overall than in other countries because of high quality forage, feed, and more efficient production methods in the U.S. EPA is conducting at least six studies on methane from cattle. Both the Clean Air Act and the 1990 farm bill contained provisions for $19 million dollars of research on methane from cattle. NCA worked with Senator Symms (R-ID) to delete these provisions. However when Clean Air came out of the conference committee, the methane from cattle portion again appeared. EPA's Office of Climate Change now contains a "methane from livestock" division. Jeremy Rifkin of the Council for Environmental Trends has sued the Departments of Agriculture, Energy, and Interior for failure to measure the amount of methane emitted from cattle that graze on federal land. The Department of Interior lost a motion to dismiss the case so the suit may proceed in court. (over) (Page 18) Last fall media across the country gave extensive coverage to news that Washington State University scientists had a grant from EPA to develop a contraption to collect and measure methane as it is emitted by the cow. Perhaps because of the novelty and humor, this story spawned more press coverage than any other environmental issue related to cattle production. However ridiculous is the fallacious claim that cattle significantly contribute to global warming, this charge does affect the environmental image of the cattle industry and could decrease consumer demand for beef. The methane issue has been used to urge people to eliminate beef from the diet and this claim has been widely disseminated by major media. Even the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA), an advisory arm to Congress, recommended action to reduce methane from livestock or to reduce cattle numbers. ACTION: NCA continually sets the record straight on the actually minute, insignificant amount of methane produced from U.S. cattle. NCA closely monitors the federal agencies reports and proposed action on global warming to prevent inaccurate claims about cattle productions role. NCA has compiled technical data with the assistance of Texas A&M on methane and regularly distributes it. ### (Page 19) Fact Sheet National Cattlemen's Association Denver Headquarters P.O. Box 3469 - Englewood, Colorado 80155 - (303) 694-0305 Government Affairs 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Suite 300 - Washington, D.C. 20004-1701 - (202) 347-0228 April, 1991 ISSUE: The TAKINGS ORDER and Private Property Rights Act SUMMARY: President Reagan issued an Executive Order (E.O.) 12630 that requires all federal departments and agencies to avoid actions which infringe on private property rights. Issued March 15, 1988, Order 12630 is entitled Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. The Order reminds all federal entities that governmental actions which restrict the use or value of private property could result in a "taking" for which financial compensation by due process is required. In addition, the Order establishes as ongoing process within the government for assessing the impact on property rights of all federal actions: policies, regulations, and legislation. The Order does not, and legally cannot, prohibit takings, but it directs the government to minimize takings and it creates a mechanism for eliminating inadvertent takings. Most federal agencies have been slow if not defiant in complying with E.O. 12630. To remedy this, Senators Symms, Boren, and Heflin introduced S.50 to make agency compliance a federal law. Called The Private Property Rights Act of 1991, S.50 also has been introduced in the House, as H.R. 1572, by Reps. Olin, Roberts, Stenholm, and McEwen. BACKGROUND: Important Supreme Court decisions in 1987-88 imposed stricter limits on the extent to which government regulations can restrict the owner's use of his own private property. Cases like Nollan vs CA Coastal Commission and First English Church vs County of Los Angeles heighten the standard for the point at which a restriction on property use becomes a "taking". The cases decided that even a temporary and/or partial deprivation of the economic use of private property caused by a governmental action could amount to a taking. If a taking occurs, the government must prove that there is a public purpose that warrants the taking and must provide financial compensation by due process. Undue delays in issuing a permit, for example, could lead to takings according to these landmark cases. The E.O. 12630 rearticulates that strict "taking" standard. It reminds the federal government that even regulations to protect public health and safety ... actions which are usually given wide latitude in government and before the Courts ... fall under this Order. In scope, the Order extends to almost all governmental actions that may restrict property use or value. President Bush has reaffirmed Reagan's endorsement of E.O. 12630. (over) (Page 20) The basic importance of this Order for cattlemen is that it establishes a process within the federal government for heightening awareness of private property rights and an incentive for avoiding governmental actions that transgress these constitutional rights. The core of this process is the written Takings Implication Assessment (TIA), required for a broad range of proposed action such as a regulation. The TIA must include: 1) an assessment of potential impact on private property use and value, 2) an estimate of the potential cost to the government if the impact was determined by a court to be a taking for which compensation must be paid, 3) consideration of alternative action which would minimize the taking risk to the government and thus also minimize impact on private property. E.O. 12630 should now be in effect. The Department of Justice has issued detailed guidelines for doing TIA's. Several departments, such as Interior, Energy, and Commerce, have issued supplemental guidelines that specify how the Order applies to their programs. Most departments and agencies have been slow to meet its requirements, particularly the USDA and EPA. Active support of the Order from private sector is necessary to further government compliance. California and Colorado have succeeded in getting state level Executive Orders like 12630. 17 other states are trying. Private property owners' organizations have developed in these and many other states. Senator Symms introduced an amendment to the farm bill to codify E.O. 12630. The amendment lost by only two votes. The National Wildlife Federation and the League of Conservation Voters fought against this amendment, claiming it would prevent the government from necessary action to protect the environment. NCA worked with the Administration to counter these charges. Subsequently, the Department of Justice issued a ten-page letter explaining the Administration's support for legislation to codify a procedure like that required by E.O. 12630. Vice President Quayle has chosen this as one of his priority issues. ACTION: NCA has actively promoted implementation of the E.O. and informed the entire agricultural community about it. NCA sponsored conferences on the E.O. in Denver May 1989. NCA and the Florida Cattlemen's Association cosponsored another seminar last November in Orlando. NCA's Private Lands Committee sponsored a Property Rights seminar at Midyear '90 and at the Dallas Convention. NCA has met with the White House and Secretaries of USDA and Interior to urge full compliance with Order and continually informs Congress of its bearing on legislation. Senators Symms (R-ID), Boren (D-OK), and Heflin (D-AL) introduced S.50 in January. Reps. Olin (D-VA), Roberts (R-KS), Stenholm (D-TX), and McEwen (R-OH) introduced H.R.1572, March 21, 1991. S.50 and H.R. 1572 are collecting a growing list of cosponsors but will need persistent, active lobbying to win passage. NCA strongly urges all state cattle associations to ask their entire congressional delegation to formally sign on as cosponsors immediately. ### (Page 21) Fact Sheet National Cattlemen's Association Denver Headquarters P.O. Box 3469 - Englewood, Colorado 80155 - (303) 694-0305 Government Affairs 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Suite 300 - Washington, D.C. 20004-1701 - (202) 347-0228 April, 1991 ISSUE: Wetlands Protection SUMMARY: Preservation and restoration of wetlands has become a major policy for the federal government and national environmental organizations. President Bush adopted the controversial "no net loss of wetlands" as official federal policy shortly after his election. Since then multiple agency efforts have expanded existing programs for wetlands. Most existing and proposed wetlands programs involve acquisition, easement, and regulation of private land. Four federal agencies have jurisdiction over wetlands: EPA, Corps of Engineers (CE), Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and Soil Conservation Service (SCS). The policy, definition, and regulatory authority on wetlands are extremely vague. Man-made dirt stock tanks in extremely dry pasture have been classified as wetlands. The government estimates that 80% of wetlands are on farm and ranch land and attributes the major loss of U.S. wetlands to agriculture. Reports from the country tell of increasing federal agency interference with basic production practices in the name of wetlands protection, particularly from CE. Federal wetlands action has created broad and intense opposition from landowners. Prospects for change are good. BACKGROUND: In October 1988, the Conservation Foundation issued The National Wetlands Policy Forum Report. The report first articulated the "no net loss" policy and recommended ways to achieve this goal through new federal and state programs. Shortly after William Reilly took the reins of EPA, the White House adopted the entire Forum Report as official policy. In January 1989, the four agencies with jurisdiction finally agreed to the Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands. This is not a definition; it is a 72-page technical method for "identifying" a wetland. According to the manual, wetlands have three criteria: 1) hydrophytic vegetation, 2) hydric soils, and 3) hydrology or wetness. Not all three criteria have to be present to "identify" a wetland. If wetlands vegetation would be there under "normal circumstances," then the criterion is met. Wetness can be established by some soil saturation as much as 18 inches below the surface for only seven days of a long growing season. This leads to a very broad scope for wetland determinations. Reports from the country indicate that soil type alone has been frequently used to formally delineate wetland. On February 7, 1990 EPA and the CE finally issued a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) that establishes procedures for permitting use of wetlands. The MOA reiterates the "no net loss" policy with strict rules that require considerable mitigation, i.e. creation of new wetlands when a use "alters" an existing wetland. The Corps of Engineers (according to Sec 404 of Clean Water Act) is supposed to exclude "normal farming and ranching activities" from its permitting requirements. However, this exemption is not being consistently applied by the CE or EPA and many farmers and ranchers have been subjected to the CE regulatory authority for even minor practices such as repair of a levee. The real effects of the new wetlands policy and the MOA are rapidly emerging in what may be the most contentious issue for agricultural producers in many years. (over) (Page 22) STATUS: Public outcry, particularly from agriculture, led to many congressional hearings last year. Pacific Legal Foundation and others have filed suit against EPA and Corps of Engineers over the MOA which was issued without any public comment. In early May, EPA and CE began holding public hearings on the technical aspects of the Delineation Manual. NCA and several state associations testified at these hearings. The four agencies are now meeting to consider changes in the Manual. EPA and CE have issued a Memorandum for field offices to specify what the "normal farming and ranching" exemption means. The exemption still does not cover many basic ranching practices with wetlands. A brochure to explain the exemption is available at local SCS offices. In early September, EPA/CE issued an exemption for wetlands on "prior converted wetlands" as SCS defines that category of land. The Interagency Task Force on Wetlands of the White House Domestic Policy Council in late summer held public hearings and invited public comment on no net loss policy. NCA members testified at five of the hearings as did hundreds of ranchers and farmers. Two important wetlands takings law suits were decided in the U.S. Claims Court in favor of the private property owners. The decisions awarded multi-million dollar takings compensations to the landowner as a result of CE refusal to grant a permit on wetlands. The 101st Congress dealt with over 80 bills on wetlands. Only one bill, the North American Wetlands Conservation Act, became law last December '89. It provides $26 million for wetlands acquisition especially along the flyway for North American migratory waterfowl. Most legislative action on wetlands occurred in the 1990 farm bill concerning Swamp buster requirements. This 102nd Congress has several bills. H.R. 1330, The Comprehensive Wetlands Conservation and Management Act introduced by Rep. Jimmy Hayes (D-LA) would thoroughly revise current federal authority in many ways agreeable to NCA's policy. H.R. 1330 would tighten the definition, expand the agricultural exemption, and recognize "takings" of private property rights. The Clean Water Act, which contains the Section 404 on wetlands, will be renewed this year. A version of H.R. 1330 could be amended to Clean Water. The U.S. FWS has beefed up its acquisition and easement programs and is publishing lists of priority wetlands acquisitions on private land often without prior notice to the owner. The Service recently issued its Wetlands Action Plan. EPA has begun to implement its Regional Concept Plans and held a hearing in Hastings, NE on the Rain Water Basin area. ACTION: NCA has been actively working with Congress and the agencies to balance wetlands protection with agricultural production. NCA was instrumental in getting a more realistic definition of wetlands in the 1990 farm bill which would make wetlands delineation depend upon actual and simultaneous presence of all three wetlands criteria over a significant portion of every growing season. At NCA's urging, the House Agriculture Committee also agreed that SCS must notify landowners before final wetlands delineation at which time request for an on-site determination can be made. Other farm bill provisions on wetlands include a voluntary permanent easement program, CRP eligibility, Natural Resource Loan and Water Quality Protection Program eligibility for wetlands maintenance and restoration. NCA is urging the administration and congress to: 1. Fully exempt normal ranching and farming from Corps of Engineers' authority. 2. Exempt man-made wetlands such as stock ponds and irrigated pasture. 3. Revise Delineation Manual and all wetlands definitions. 4. Clarify the "no net loss" policy, identification method, and definition of wetlands in a realistic way. 5. Establish the scientific basis for the alleged environmental value of wetlands protection. Establish minimal effects exemption for certain wetlands from all federal authority. 6. Eliminate all direct or indirect acquisition programs which are not entirely voluntary. ### (Page 23) Fact Sheet National Cattlemen's Association Denver Headquarters P.O. Box 3469 - Englewood, Colorado 80155 - (303) 694-0305 Government Affairs 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Suite 300 - Washington, D.C. 20004-1701 - (202) 347-0228 April, 1991 ISSUE: The American Heritage Trust "Billion Dollar Trust Fund" SUMMARY: Legislation has been introduced in the last two sessions of Congress that would replace the existing Land and Water Conservation Fund and Historic Preservation Fund with a new, giant American Heritage Trust "billion dollar trust fund." The fund would bypass the normal appropriations process and provide an automatic $1 billion per year to federal agencies, state and local governments, and non-profit groups for land acquisition and outdoor recreation. In the last Congress, the legislation passed the House Interior Committee but then died, and the Senate version was never moved. NCA opposed the legislation. Reintroduction of legislation is expected to occur in the 102nd Congress. BACKGROUND: In January, 1985, President Reagan established by Executive Order a 15- member "President's Commission on Americans Outdoors" to review the nation's outdoor recreation policies and needs. The PCAO's final report was submitted to the President in January, 1988. Among other recommendations, it called for more wild and scenic rivers, establishment of buffer zones along designated scenic highways, an extensive network of greenways, increased wetland and shoreline protection, and the creation of an off-budget, one billion dollar per year trust fund to provide funding to implement these recommendations. NCA and the Public Lands Council submitted extensive comments opposing a number of the draft recommendations and were instrumental in modifying or eliminating some of the worst. Since then a number of initiatives have been undertaken to implement many of the PCAO recommendations. The most significant to date is the American Heritage Trust legislation originally introduced in the 100th Congress and reintroduced in the 101st Congress. In the last session of Congress Rep. Mo Udall (D-AZ) introduced H.R. 876 with 223 cosponsors and Sen. John Chaffee (R-RI) introduced companion bill S. 370 with 39 cosponsors. (over) (Page 24) In April, 1989, NCA, along with PLC with other commodity and business groups, testified against the bill during House hearings. The House Interior and Insular Affairs Committee later passed the legislation by a vote of 26-1 after Republican committee members walked out of heated deliberations where a number of their proposed amendments were arbitrarily rejected. NCA worked with the House Rules and Appropriations Committees to keep the bill from reaching the House floor. NCA and PLC also testified at Senate hearings in April, 1990, before the Senate Energy and Natural Resource Committee. The Bush Administration opposed the Udall/Chaffee bill, but George Bush spoke of the need for an "Endowment for the Environment" during his campaign. As an alternative to the Udall/Chaffee bills President Bush proposed to allot $1 billion for two major environmental initiatives, "America the Beautiful" and "Legacy '99" in the Administration's 1991 budget. Both programs aim to protect natural resources and enhance recreational opportunities with emphasis on reforestation, dam safety, and maintenance programs. In June, 1988 the Interagency Task Force on Outdoor Recreation Resources and Opportunities released a response to the PCAO report entitled "Outdoor Recreation in a Nation of Communities." It emphasized private property rights and stated that there is no need for more extensive federal land acquisition or a trust fund. ACTION: Environmental groups have included the American Heritage Trust legislation as part of their "Blueprint for the Environment" and to consider its passage will remain a top priority. NCA will continue to work with PLC and other groups to defeat these bills on budgetary grounds, and in order to protect private property rights and multiple use management on federal lands. ### (Page 25) Fact Sheet National Cattlemen's Association Denver Headquarters P.O. Box 3469 - Englewood, Colorado 80155 - (303) 694-0305 Government Affairs 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Suite 300 - Washington, D.C. 20004-1701 - (202) 347-0228 LEGITIMATE HEDGES ISSUE: Seek to modify the definition of hedging to reflect current hedging strategies used in risk management programs and incorporating the use of newly developed option contracts. BACKGROUND: Many agricultural producers use commodity futures markets and futures options to transfer price risk via hedging. While hedging is an extremely useful tool, recent interpretations by the IRS and tax courts leave much doubt among cattlemen concerning what will qualify as a legitimate hedge and what will be considered a speculative trade. Modern risk-management strategies increase the risk of abuse by speculative traders attempting to claim a hedging exemption. However, the definition in this area is not adequate to address the new and different risk management strategies being implemented in the futures markets and utilized by producers. Without further clarification of the hedging definition, legitimate hedgers will be falsely labeled as speculators, and truly abusive speculators will continue to hide under the hedging exemption. If the futures transaction is ruled to be a speculative trade, then any gains or losses will be taxed as 60% long-term capital gain or loss and 40% short- term capital gain or loss -- limiting deductions to $3,000 per year. In addition, gains or losses will be determined by the mark-to-market rule for contracts held at the end of the year. If the transaction is a legitimate hedge, resulting gains or losses will be taxed as ordinary income or loss -- with no limit on deductions for losses -- and the mark-to-market rule does not apply. In recent years, the body of knowledge concerning which hedging strategies will provide protection against highly variable cash prices and the interpretations of what constitutes hedging by the IRS appear to be moving in diverging directions. Both private sector analysts and researchers in the Land Grant University system have developed and tested management strategies designed to better protect against adverse movements in cash prices. (over) (Page 26) In many cases, the preferred strategies turn out to be "selective hedging" strategies. These strategies may have the hedge in place only part of the production period and/or remove (and perhaps replace) the hedge during the production period. The use of options also introduces a concept not recognized by current hedging definitions. In other words, the producer uses available market analysis to determine when he or she can tolerate exposure to prevailing cash price risk and when he or she will "select" to seek protection against the risk of adverse cash price moves by placing a hedge. These modern risk-management strategies in many cases violate the old hedge- and-hold theory used by IRS to test for speculative trades. It is time for the IRS to recognize these modern strategies as legitimate hedges. SOLUTION: Transactions which are designated a hedging transaction pursuant to Section 1256 (e) (2) (c) shall be considered to be hedging transactions so long as the taxpayer documents the relationship of the transaction to reducing the risk of price change with respect to property which is held or to be held by the taxpayer. The mere fact that more than one commodity position is entered into and closed with respect to a particular inventory item will not, in and of itself, be indicative of speculative trading so long as the taxpayer can show that such positions were not in excess of his inventory on hand or to be acquired at any given time. OR Transactions which are designated as qualified for hedging consideration pursuant to Section 1256 (e) (2) (c) shall be considered to be hedging transactions so long as the taxpayer documents the inverse price relationship between the value of the cash position and the individual or combination of hedge positions such that there is some off-setting monetary nature to the relationship. The mere fact that any or all hedge positions are opened and/or closed more than once during the hedge period under consideration will not eliminate the transactions from being treated as hedge transactions as long as the quantity of inventory is not exceeded by the coverage of the hedge positions at any given time. Synthetic options strategies may be used when direct option strategies are not possible or when synthetic positions are more suitable. ### (Page 27) Fact Sheet National Cattlemen's Association Denver Headquarters P.O. Box 3469 - Englewood, Colorado 80155 - (303) 694-0305 Government Affairs 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Suite 300 - Washington, D.C. 20004-1701 - (202) 347-0228 April, 1991 ISSUE: Budget Cutting/Tax Increase Options/Capital Gains BACKGROUND: The President and Congress spent many hours and much political capital in the fall of 1990 to reach a budget agreement. The primary elements of the package are revenue increases, spending cuts, and stronger budget enforcement. Considering the weak economy, the savings and loan bailout costs, and desert storm, it's likely the budget deficit for FY 1991 will exceed $350 billion. There will be pressure on all fronts to revise the budget, but the political scars from the last battle are barely healed. NCA will be lobbying the following if taxes are back on the table. Estate Taxes: NCA and affiliate associations worked diligently in 1981, to get beneficial changes; now Congress is considering the following changes: 1. Imposing a capital gains tax at death on the increase in value from purchase until time of death. 2. Requiring the basis (original cost) of assets such as land to be carried forward to the heirs at the original value, simply disallowing the stepped-up (value at death) rule that now applies. 3. Reducing the unified credit (the current exemption equivalent is $600,000 per individual) to reflect slower inflation using a 1982 benchmark. Capital Gains: NCA will insist any bill include breeding livestock and land. Last year Congress debated the merits of a lower capital gains rate. Opponents felt it was the wrong time for capital gains and Congress failed to take action. The President wants a commission to study the issue headed by Alan Greenspan, Chairman of the Federal Revenue System. A slowing economy may fuel the interest in some type of capital investment incentive. But all indications are no capital gains in 1991. ### (Page 28) Fact Sheet National Cattlemen's Association Denver Headquarters P.O. Box 3469 - Englewood, Colorado 80155 - (303) 694-0305 Government Affairs 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Suite 300 - Washington, D.C. 20004-1701 - (202) 347-0228 April, 1991 ISSUE: IRS may require the filing of Form 1099B information returns on transactions for the purchase of farm commodities via generic commodity certificate or forward contract. This could include feedlots and other purchasers of grain/livestock. BACKGROUND: Current law (Sec. 6045 of the I.R.C.) empowers the IRS to require that "brokers" file Form 1099B information returns on transactions involving customers who are sole proprietorships and partnerships. i.e. most farmers and ranchers. Brokers are required to send the Form 1099B to the customer and the I.R.S. following each transaction. Obviously, the question becomes, is a feedlot or cattlemen buying grain, a broker. Currently the definition is sufficiently broad to include any middleman involving the purchase of goods or services. The trade definition of a broker is much narrower defining those engaged for others on a commission basis. In an Illinois case, the IRS auditing agent classified the purchase of generic commodity certificates as securities and subject to the Form 1099B reporting requirements and ask for all information on forward contracts. ACTION: NCA is asking the IRS to retroactively exempt the 1990 tax year from the requirements and prospectively write regulations including agricultural commodities as "exempt recipients" and defining agricultural buyers as "merchant," not "brokers." In retroactive regulation, IRS has agreed with NCA suggestions, exempting all but paper transactions. Prospective regulations will be written in 1991 and NCA will be submitting to IRS information as needed to make clear all exempt parties. ### (Page 29) Fact Sheet National Cattlemen's Association Denver Headquarters P.O. Box 3469 - Englewood, Colorado 80155 - (303) 694-0305 Government Affairs 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Suite 300 - Washington, D.C. 20004-1701 - (202) 347-0228 April, 1991 ISSUE: OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) Agricultural Exemptions EXEMPTION: Farming/ranching operations that do not maintain a temporary labor camp and employ 10 or fewer employees are exempt from OSHA inspections. Family members of farm employers are not counted. A "farming operation" includes any operation that grows or harvest crops or raise livestock, poultry or conduct related activities. WHAT'S COVERED: Numerous health and safety features. Many of these occur in the ordinary course of business in most farming and ranching operations. For example, slow moving vehicle signs, roll guards, PTO covers, etc. Also, several forms must be completed periodically including an annual report on deaths and injuries. Contact your state OSHA for an outline of safety requirements and filing deadlines. PENALTIES: As with most government agencies, fines are on the increase. Currently, fines vary from $100 to $5,000. Expect a considerable increase for willful violations. ANNUAL BUDGET: OSHA was appropriated approximately $275 million in 1990. ### (Page 30) Fact Sheet National Cattlemen's Association Denver Headquarters P.O. Box 3469 - Englewood, Colorado 80155 - (303) 694-0305 Government Affairs 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Suite 300 - Washington, D.C. 20004-1701 - (202) 347-0228 April, 1991 ISSUE: Commercial Drivers License, Effective April, 1992 BACKGROUND: The Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1986, strengthened the Commercial Drivers License (CDL) requirements. Clearly the intent was to crack down on 'over the road' drivers. To avoid unintended application, the Department of Transportation (DOT) in September, 1988, gave states the authority to exempt farm vehicles. The exemption applied to drivers of farm vehicles which are 1) used to transport either agricultural products; 2) not used in the operations of a common or contract motor carrier; 3) used within 150 miles of the farm; and 4) controlled and operated by a farmer. Clearly, the intent of Congress and DOT is not to require CDL for operators of feedlot trucks. Granting states flexibility to exempt these feed yard vehicles seems prudent, falls within the intent of the law and avoids unnecessary expense to these cattle producers and their farm employees. However, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has ruled custom cattle feeding operations and custom farming operation do not satisfy the "not used in common or contract motor carrier" clause and therefore are not eligible for waiver. This response followed a Kansas Department of Revenue request in February, 1991. Cattlemen use feedlot trucks primarily on private property and country roads to feed cattle in adjoining or nearby pens. Confusion arose because some states do not register these vehicles as farm vehicles but rather as commercial motor vehicles. ACTION: H.R. 1516 introduced by Congressman Lightfoot (R-IA) would exempt feedlots custom feeding cattle, retail farm business, custom harvesters and custom farming. A companion bill S. 715 was introduced by 20+ Senators. On the regulatory front, NCA will continue discussing the issue with the FHWA, but unless DOT Secretary Skinner gets involved, a regulatory solution is doubtful. ### (Page 31) Fact Sheet National Cattlemen's Association Denver Headquarters P.O. Box 3469 - Englewood, Colorado 80155 - (303) 694-0305 Government Affairs 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Suite 300 - Washington, D.C. 20004-1701 - (202) 347-0228 APRIL 1997 ISSUE: Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) Reauthorization BACKGROUND: The CFTC was due for reauthorization in 1989. Congress failed to pass reauthorizing legislation in 1990. A primary obstacle is an ongoing battle between CFTC and SEC (Securities Exchange Commission) over the right to regulate stock index futures. Jack Frick, NCA Futures Subcommittee Chairman, presented testimony in support of reauthorization to maintain the CFTC as the independent and autonomous regulatory agency of the commodity futures trading industry. NCA presented the following comments in the testimony supporting: 1) Elimination of dual trading 2) Increased surveillance of trading practices 3) Continued industry representation on the CME Board of Governors 4) Banning members committing any major rule violation from serving on disciplinary or oversight panels 5) Adoption of trading guidelines for rule violators 6) Disclosure of membership in broker associations and elimination of trading in floor broker personal accounts against orders executed by members of the same association 7) Increased auditing procedures 8) Separate time brackets for market openings and closings 9) Continued strong oversight by CFTC 10) Lengthening the CFTC reauthorization period 11) Development of electronic trading systems In the aftershocks of the stock market crash in October 1987, a jurisdictional dispute developed between the CFTC and SEC. SEC proponents have asserted that the SEC, not the CFTC, should have jurisdiction over financial futures contracts, most notably stock index futures. Agricultural and financial futures are currently traded on the same trading floors, subject to the same rules, administered by the same people. Dual agency jurisdiction over futures exchanges, under two different laws, would be a prescription for regulatory chaos. (over) (Page 32) ACTION: Support a strong, independent CFTC with exclusive jurisdiction over futures contracts. A viable CFTC would be strengthened under the Senate's pending reauthorization legislation. Vigorously oppose weakening the CFTC by splitting-off part of its jurisdiction and remain equally opposed to the idea of making the CFTC a division of the SEC. Continue to monitor CFTC reauthorization legislation and encourage members of the Senate and House Agriculture Committees to reauthorize the CFTC as the single regulatory agency of futures markets. ### (Page 33) Fact Sheet National Cattlemen's Association Denver Headquarters P.O. Box 3469 - Englewood, Colorado 80155 - (303) 694-0305 Government Affairs 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Suite 300 - Washington, D.C. 20004-1701 - (202) 347-0228 April 1991 ISSUE: Industry Concentration and Cattle Price Surveillance BACKGROUND: Packer mergers, increased concentration and integration within the beef industry warrant continued or increased surveillance to ensure competitive bids for cattle. Mergers within the packing industry increased the concentration ratio for steer and heifer slaughter to nearly 70 percent in the four largest firms. Boxed beef production is 80 percent concentrated in four firms. Packing firms have vertically integrated forward towards the meat retail counter with meat cutting, boxed beef and some trial efforts at supplying retail case-ready fresh meat products. Packers have also integrated backwards towards livestock supplies through forward contracting, marketing agreements or outright ownership. Mergers and integration raise questions about cattle and beef price discovery and reporting. Cattlemen have raised concerns about continued competitive pricing of beef products throughout the production chain. To date, it appears that over-capacity, rivalry and competition exist among the three major remaining firms and price impacts from the evolving structure are small or non-existent. The Packers and Stockyards Administration is officially charged with monitoring livestock prices to "maintain open and fair competition in the livestock and packing industries". Recently, however, appropriations have been requested by a consortium of university researchers with support from seven farm-state congressmen to conduct a 3-year, $2.25 million "Analysis of the Economic and Social Impacts of the U.S. Livestock and Poultry Processing Industries, 1975 to Present" (over) (Page 34) ACTION: Continue ongoing discussion with the Packers and Stockyards Administration and encourage strengthening of existing systems or development of new market surveillance techniques to ensure that competitive pricing remains in the cattle feeding and packing industry. Continue input into the FTC and Justice Department encouraging close monitoring of Packer concentration. Coordinate with agencies and research institutions to assure livestock industry evaluations funded by Congress are credible and unbiased. Work with the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) to increase reporting of contracted and formula priced cattle. Encourage AMS to increase verified reporting of boxed beef sales and to develop a system (either an index or transaction prices) for reporting BCUs that are formula priced on contract. ### (Page 35) Alt Text: outline of Kansas Kansas Livestock Association 6031 S.W. 37th Street - Topeka, Kansas 66614-5128 - Telephone: (913) 273-5115 FAX: (913) 273-3399 Owns and Publishes The Kansas STOCKMAN magazine and KLA NEWS & Market Report newsletter. April 1991 1990 FARM BILL KLA Position The Kansas Livestock Association opposes government commodity programs that unfairly distort normal marketing and production patterns. Furthermore, the association supports efforts in foreign trade negotiations to eliminate unfair farm subsidies in competing countries and believes USDA programs should move toward less government involvement. Dairy Policy The dairy buy-out and diversion programs of the last two farm bills severely impacted the beef cattle industry. In 1986, the Dairy Termination Program caused a $25 million cash loss and a $2 billion inventory loss in the first week of it's implementation. Since 20% of the total beef produced is derived from dairy cattle, government dairy policy can have a big impact on red meat prices. KLA believes if the nation's dairy herd is too large, the culling should take place on a gradual basis by lowering the milk support price to market clearing levels that are more in line with supply and demand. Grain Programs The livestock industry is a major user of feed grains. On an annual basis Kansas feeds over 4 million cattle, uses over 180 million bushels of grain, 8 million bushels of soybeans, and 8 billion pounds of silage and hay. These statistics don't include the grain fed to our cow herds and stocker cattle. KLA urges Congress to avoid grain program proposals that have a negative impact on the livestock industry. Haying and Grazing of Set Aside Acres In 1987 Congress amended the 1985 Farm Bill to bring some consistency to the haying and grazing policy for idle acres. Under current law State ASCS Committees choose five months which program participants are prohibited to hay or graze Acreage Conservation Reserve (ACR), and Conserving Use (CU) acres. (Year long haying and grazing may be authorized in emergency situations.) These five months must be between April 1 and October 31. KLA supports these provisions. (Page 36) High Moisture Grain Loans KLA supported provisions in the 1990 act to allow program participants the flexibility to utilize the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) loan program on high moisture grain. In the past, some producers would verify production through scale tickets, receive a recourse loan and immediately pay the loan back with CCC-6 certificates. (Called PIK & roll). This flexibility could be important under certain market conditions. (Page 37) Fact Sheet National Cattlemen's Association Denver Headquarters P.O. Box 3469 - Englewood, Colorado 80155 - (303) 694-0305 Government Affairs 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Suite 300 - Washington, D.C. 20004-1701 - (202) 347-0228 April, 1991 ISSUE: Dietary Fat Reduction Initiative: Project LEAN BACKGROUND: A national educational campaign to reduce dietary fat has beef launched by the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. The campaign is called Project LEAN, which stands for Low-Fat Eating for America Now. Project LEAN is directed to consumers and to the industries, organizations, and professionals that influence what Americans eat. The campaign seeks to stimulate consumer demand for low-fat foods and menu items. The impetus for the project is that Americans eat too much fat. Growing evidence from epidemiological and animal studies show that high-fat diets are linked with increased risks of cancer and to high blood cholesterol. About 37% of the calories in the average American diet come from fat. The American Heart Association, American Cancer Society, the National Cancer Institute, and reports by the National Research Council and the National Academy of Sciences are all recommending that no more than 30% of the daily intake of calories should come from fat. Project LEAN has embraced that recommendation. Its goal is to reduce the public's overall dietary fat intake to 30% of calories by 1998 through an educational campaign. STATUS: Ten community sites throughout the country were selected to promote low-fat eating. Each may receive up to $70,000 in funding from the $700,000 worth of grants awarded. Phoenix is one of the selected sites for Project LEAN's community education program. The Arizona Beef Council is cooperating in this Project LEAN effort in Phoenix. Success with this project may lead to expanded cooperation with the beef industry. ACTION: NCA will work to ensure that Project LEAN includes lean beef as part of fat reduction diets. NCA will also demonstrate that lean beef fits into a healthy diet consisting of no more than 30% of calories from fat. NCA will continue to urge Project LEAN leaders to stress total dietary intake over "low-fat" foods. ### (Page 38) Fact Sheet National Cattlemen's Association Denver Headquarters P.O. Box 3469 - Englewood, Colorado 80155 - (303) 694-0305 Government Affairs 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Suite 300 - Washington, D.C. 20004-1701 - (202) 347-0228 April, 1991 ISSUE: The National Nutrition Labeling and Education Act BACKGROUND: President Bush signed The National Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1989 on November 9, 1990. The bill requires nutritional labeling of fat, saturated and unsaturated fat; calories derived from total fat; amount grams of cholesterol and fiber. The amounts of protein, vitamins and minerals could be listed voluntarily. The bill forbids stricter state regulation on health claims, ingredient labels, and identity standards, but allows stricter state ingredient warning requirements. This enables California's proposition 65 to continue (since it is an ingredient warning program), but new state programs on health claims, for example, can not be drafted if they are stricter than federal requirements. The bill cancels proposed FDA regulations requiring supermarkets to immediately offer produce and seafood nutrition data. Instead, the bill encourages food retailers to provide such information voluntarily. If they don't respond voluntarily within 2 1/2 years, the FDA will force retailers to provide data. STATUS: Since beef labeling is regulated by USDA, not FDA, beef is not directly affected by this bill. However, the message is clear: "If the food industry doesn't offer nutrient data to consumers voluntarily, they will be forced to." The recently released National Academy of Science (NAS) report on nutrition labeling called on USDA to reform and broaden nutrition labeling for the foods they regulate. There is no question that the passage of the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act and the recommendations of the NAS report prompted USDA to aggressively schedule nutrition labeling reform for meat and poultry products. (over) (Page 39) ACTION: NCA will monitor the impact the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act has on FDA regulated foods. Work with FDA and USDA officials in drafting definitions for nutrition labels that will provide consumers clear, consistent messages on diet and health as related to beef consumption. Work closely with Food Marketing Institute and FDA to ensure that the programs developed for produce and seafood do not inadvertently force unwanted changes in the current Nutri-Facts program. Encourage the development of a label format labeling that highlights the nutrient density of beef. ### (Page 40) Fact Sheet National Cattlemen's Association Denver Headquarters P.O. Box 3469 - Englewood, Colorado 80155 - (303) 694-0305 Government Affairs 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Suite 300 - Washington, D.C. 20004-1701 - (202) 347-0228 April, 1991 ISSUE: Update of USDA Handbook 8-13, "The Nutrient Composition of Beef" BACKGROUND: The National Beef Market Basket Survey showed that retail cuts of beef have 27% less fat than those recorded in USDA's 1986 Handbook 8-13. "The 1986 Nutrient Composition of Beef," included a 1/2" fat trim the government assumed Americans ate with their beef. The Market Basket study revealed that retail cuts have an average trim of only 1/8" external fat. Following persistent encouragement by NCA, USDA moved to update its nutrient data base to reflect today's leaner, trimmer beef. The new data on beef includes the nutrient composition of raw and cooked cuts with zero external fat and for cuts with 1/4" fat. With the new figures in place, future food consumption surveys will show that beef is supplying far less fat and calories than expected. The new Handbook data also serves as an invaluable reference for government influencers who issue dietary guidance. The updated data in "The Nutrient Composition of Beef," provides nutritionists, government surveyors, and policy makers with a more accurate document on today's beef. STATUS: The new Handbook was published and released in August, 1990. It will serve as nationally recognized data in support of the nutrition labeling of beef products. ACTION: NCA continues to work with USDA to emphasize and promote the new data and ensure broad distribution of the 1990 Handbook 8-13 to nutritionists, dieticians, educators and policy makers. ### (Page 41) Fact Sheet National Cattlemen's Association Denver Headquarters P.O. Box 3469 - Englewood, Colorado 80155 - (303) 694-0305 Government Affairs 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Suite 300 - Washington, D.C. 20004-1701 - (202) 347-0228 April, 1991 ISSUE: European Community Ban on the use of growth hormones and imports from countries who use them. BACKGROUND: On January 1, 1989 the EC banned imports of beef and beef products from countries that used growth promotants unless the product was raised without the use of growth promotants. At the same time the United States government retaliated against the EC in protest of this indefensible trade barrier. The retaliation amounted to increased tariffs on $100 million worth of imports from the EC, this included some meat products, coffee extracts, canned tomatoes, etc. EC officials threatened to escalate the issue with counterretaliation. They insisted that the USDA must certify U.S. exports to the "hormone free." The USDA would not meet the EC demands, stating that it was not necessary nor possible to make such tests. A high level taskforce with representatives from the EC and the U.S. government was appointed. This task force was assigned the responsibility to find ways to move products to the EC, consistent with EC laws and U.S. production practices. STATUS: EC officials have visited several producers and packers in the U.S. attempting to find product that has been raised that meets the EC directive requirement of non-use of growth promotants. Only a few shipments have been made to the EC in 1989. There were virtually no exports of beef to the EC in 1990. (over) (Page 42) The EC has agreed to accept product from dairy cows for dairy or breeding purposes from approved plants in the United States. There is no label approval for hormone use for dairy cows or cows for breeding purposes. The European Court of Justice has upheld the ban. The European Federation of Animal Health sought to overturn the ban by the Court. However, the Court's Advocate General wrote this is "one of those complex economic and political situations" in which the Court traditionally allows the EC Council " a wide area of discretion." A final ruling is expected this summer. ACTION: The NCA supports the U.S. government's actions to date. The NCA believes the EC ban is a blatant non-tariff trade barrier that is not justified with scientific evidence. However, the NCA does not object if individual producers wish to meet the EC requirements and ship to that market. NCA does not believe retaliation should be reduced until actual trade is resumed. The US/EC Taskforce has not met since September, 1989. Note: On December 31, 1990, the EC delisted all US beef plants that were previously approved for shipments to the EC under their Third Country Meat Directives. Therefore, because of either the hormone ban or the Third Country Directive, virtually no beef or beef products are currently being exported to the EC. ### (Page 43) Fact Sheet National Cattlemen's Association Denver Headquarters P.O. Box 3469 - Englewood, Colorado 80155 - (303) 694-0305 Government Affairs 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Suite 300 - Washington, D.C. 20004-1701 - (202) 347-0228 April, 1991 ISSUE: FAST TRACK NEGOTIATING AUTHORITY SUMMARY: The President was initially given fast track authority for approval of trade agreements by Congress in the 1974 Trade Act. This authority was re- enacted in 1988 trade legislation until June 1, 1991. If the President wanted an extension of two years, he could request it by March 1, 1991. Congress would have until June 1, 1991 to disapprove his request for such extension. What should be merely a procedural action is now becoming a hotly contested debate. A vote on fast track may well be a referendum on the Uruguay Round and North American Free Trade Agreement. Fast track authority is necessary to conclude the Uruguay Round and to enter into negotiation for a NAFTA. Opponents to a conclusion to the Uruguay Round and to a NAFTA are joining forces to prevent an extension for the President's fast track authority. BACKGROUND: Fast track authority provides two guarantees essential to the successful negotiation of trade agreements 1) a vote on implementing legislation within a fixed period of time, and 2) no amendments to that legislation. Without fast track, the President cannot assure our negotiating partners that the deal they strike is the deal that will be voted on by Congress. Without that assurance, foreign governments are reluctant even to negotiate with the U.S. and will not make the tough concessions necessary to reach agreements the U.S. would be willing to sign. No trading partner will give its bottom line knowing that the bargain struck could be re-opened. The term fast track may be a misnomer. It does not mean a speedy negotiation, nor does it usurp the role of Congress or the private sector. (over) (Page 44) Congress has the final word on any agreement negotiated. In past negotiations, the Administration has worked closely with Congress and the private sector during the negotiations and during the development of the implementing legislation. The fast track statute contains extensive notification and consultation requirements. ACTION: NCA supports the President's request for an extension of fast track authority for approval of trade agreements. ### (Page 45) Fact Sheet National Cattlemen's Association Denver Headquarters P.O. Box 3469 - Englewood, Colorado 80155 - (303) 694-0305 Government Affairs 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Suite 300 - Washington, D.C. 20004-1701 - (202) 347-0228 BACKGROUND: The United States has been an active participant in the Uruguay Round of the Multilateral Trade Negotiations for the past four years. This round of talks is under the direction of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. The GATT is the arbiter of international trade, formed in 1947 to help expand world trade by liberalizing each country's trade restrictions. The Uruguay Round was started in September, 1986 in Punte del Este in Uruguay. The Punte del Este declaration proscribed the following areas for negotiations: 1. Tariffs 2. Non-tariff measures 3. Tropical measures 4. Natural resource-based products 5. Textiles and apparel 6. Agriculture 7. GATT articles 8. Safeguards 9. Tokyo Rounds agreements 10. Subsidies and countervailing measures 11. Dispute settlement 12. Trade-related aspects of intellectual property right, including trade in counterfeit goods 13. Trade-related investment measures 14. Trade in services ยท 15. Functioning of the GATT system Agriculture has by far become the most contentious and important part of the Round. (over) (Page 46) (2) The Declaration in Punte del Este spelled three key areas for GATT reform in agriculture. 1. Improving market access through the reduction of import barriers. 2. Improving the competitive environment by increasing discipline on the use of all direct and indirect subsidies and other measures affecting agriculture directly and indirectly. 3. Minimizing the adverse effects that sanitary and phytosanitary regulations and barriers can have on trade in agriculture, taking into account the revelant international agreements. The negotiations were to conclude in December, 1990. The U.S. Administration had insisted on fundamental changes in agriculture throughout the four years since the Uruguay Round was initiated in Punte del Este, Uruguay. It had the support of most every country participating in the negotiations. The European community was singled out as the major stumbling block to an agreement on agriculture. In the end, Japan and Korea would fit in the same category. On December 7, 1990, the negotiators agreed to suspend the talks to allow a cooling off period in hopes that an agreement could eventually be reached. It is expected that the negotiations may resume in mid January. However, U.S. Trade Representative, Carla Hills has made it clear that there will be no reason to resume talks unless the EC is willing to come to the table with a meaningful offer. In late February, GATT officials signaled a resumption to the talks with all parties agreeing to meaningful negotiations. Following is a brief overview of the U.S. offer on agriculture: Export Subsidies: Export subsidies on all primary agricultural products would be reduced 90% over ten years. (over) (Page 47) (3) Market Access: All non-tariff import access barriers would be converted to tariffs. All existing tariffs would be bound. These newly converted tariffs and existing tariffs would be reduced on average by 75% over ten years. Internal Support: The most trade-distorting internal support measures, policies directly linked to the price or production of a specific commodity, would be reduced by 75% over ten years. Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures: This area of the negotiation focuses on developing new rules to settle trade disputes involving sanitary and phytosanitary barriers. Such an agreement is vital to insure that artificial barriers are not rationalized on health grounds. This proposal is contingent that all other GATT member countries reduce their barriers and abide by the agreement. If the US negotiators are successful, it is believed the livestock industry stands to gain a great deal in entering and expanding into new markets. NCA POSITION: The NCA has supported the goals and objectives of the U.S. negotiators. It has also made it clear that support of a final agreement would only exist if there was significant and fundamental progress in eliminating export supports and obtaining market access worldwide as well as getting significant progress in the sanitary provisions. The NCA supports the President's request for an extension of his "fast track" authority to negotiate. ### (Page 48) (Handwritten: Tues, April 16) March 27, 1991 TO: SENATOR DOLE FROM: BRET FOX SUBJECT: GROUPS IN TOWN: KANSAS FARM BUREAU KANSAS LIVESTOCK ASSOCIATION The Kansas Farm Bureau Leaders of the Year will be in town April 6-9 for meetings with the Kansas Congressional delegation and USDA officials. The group will consist of approximately 14 couples as well as several KFB staff members (Doyle Rahjes and Paul Fleener). Attached is a list of members attending. For last year's group, you held a luncheon meeting in the Leader's office. Paul Fleener has informed me that this year's schedule will allow an afternoon meeting with you if possible. (Handwritten: [illegible]) I have checked with Yvonne, and your schedule on Monday, April 8 would allow for a brief meeting and photo anytime from 2:30 to 4:00. OPTION: Schedule 30 minute meeting and photo Photo only Other (In Brackets: The Kansas Livestock Association officers, staff, and members of the Kansas National Cattleman's Association Board will be in town on April 15-16. There will be approximately 9 members and two staff members in attendance. Last year, the group met with you for approximately 30 minutes in the Leader's office. I have checked with Yvonne, and your schedule would permit a brief meeting anytime after 2:00 on both Monday an Tuesday. OPTION: Schedule 30 minute meeting and photo (Handwritten: [illegible]) Photo only Other)