No Worries Here: Sen. Chuck Grassley says competing cattle bill is not problematic for his own

Senator Chuck Grassley knows his cattle competition bill faces competition of its own, with House Ag Committee Chairman, David Scott, putting forth his own bill as well to help small cattle producers. He says he is not worried.

“I don’t think that it’s a problem for my bill. I haven’t read his bill, and I’m not sure I understand the motivations for it. If it comes because of the increased costs of production, because of inflation, and because of diesel prices, and all the stuff connected with increased costs of farming is one thing,” said Grassley.

Like Grassley, Scott aims to boost competition and help offset large price spreads, but by using larger insurance subsidies and new marketing programs.

“I’ve been working with Chairman Scott for years now, and he knows where I stand on behalf of Iowa farmers, so I wouldn’t think he’d be doing anything in conflict with our goals, but maybe I ought to read his legislation before I comment anymore,” Grassley said to reporters.

Senator Grassley’s bill won a bipartisan vote in the Senate Ag Committee last month but has yet to get a vote on the Senate floor.

Ag organizations like the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association have been vocal about their thoughts on these bills, but are calling for Scott’s bill “more favorable” than Grassley’s.

Scott says his bill will focus on the Livestock Risk Protection Insurance Program.

“My first pillar will make the Livestock Risk Protection Insurance Program more accessible to smaller ranchers. It will work better for smaller producers by increasing the premium subsidy by 20 percentage points for ranchers who market 100 or less head of cattle per year,” Scott said.

He says his bill will prioritize producers with limited resources or those in underserved areas.


NCBA says they are not ready to back a new cattle bill

Sen. Grassley’s cattle market bill has taken center stage

Senate Ag Committee gathers for long-awaited Cattle Market Reform Bill discussion