Montana committee hearing on HB 119 spotlights split over state cattle "checkoff"

Representative Brandon Lier introduced House Bill 119 to the House Agriculture Committee, saying the bill "creates the Montana Cattle Committee" and provides a framework for a producer-led, producer-voted state assessment. "We are not enacting the tax on the cattle producer with this bill," Lier said, stressing any assessment would require a referendum of producers and pass by a simple majority.

Supporters told the committee the measure would let Montana producers promote Montana cattle and fund research and outreach that the national program cannot. Jim Steinbeizer, a rancher and former Montana Beef Council leader, cited a return-on-investment study and said, "For every dollar invested in the check off, we received in return $13.41." Proponents argued a state program could finance education, market development and research targeting Montana cattle and could be refundable to individual producers who opt out after a transaction.

Opponents raised governance and cost concerns. Eric Summerfeld of the Montana Farmers Union said the bill "creates a new tax and bureaucracy in the state of Montana" and warned that administrative costs could consume a large share of revenue. Multiple witnesses questioned the bill's appointment structure, which gives the governor appointment authority rather than guaranteed seats tied to producer organizations; Ken Morris of the Montana Cattlemen's Association said that arrangement risks politicizing committee membership.

Committee members pressed for specifics on administration and oversight. Mike Honeycutt, executive officer of the Montana Department of Livestock, explained the bill ties collection to existing change-of-ownership inspections and noted animals can be assessed more than once during their lifetime. He cited publicly available filings showing Montana Beef Council gross assessments in 2023 of about $1.5 million and said back-office overhead in state programs often runs "25 to 30%" depending on how work is performed and defined.

Other concerns included the lack of a voting turnout threshold for a valid referendum, the absence of statutory guardrails on how money must be spent, and the potential burden of refund paperwork on small or older producers. Representatives of conservation and agricultural groups urged either making the program voluntary or adding clearer rules, and a member of the Native American caucus asked that organizations representing Native producers be allowed to nominate committee members.

The sponsor and supporters said many operational details would be worked out in rule-making if the committee were created, and proponents said the bill largely follows existing state code used for other commodity committees. Lier closed by saying the bill gives producers "the ability to tax themselves" and urged a do-pass recommendation.

The committee did not take executive action on HB 119 at the hearing; members postponed action because an amendment was not ready and agreed to consider executive action at a later meeting.