This bipartisan, bicameral event underscores the merit of our amendment to ban packer ownership of livestock. I appreciate the leadership of the House members here today who filed legislation to show resolve among House members on behalf of family farmers.
The white paper we’re highlighting puts to rest many of the false claims presented by the big packers. It explains why their statements are misleading. It describes the impact of packer consolidation and vertical integration on independent producers for the last 20 years. It lays out how and why packers influence the market. I value the hard work and wisdom of the professors who prepared this paper, including Neil Harl of Iowa State University. They have proven through their careful study and expert analysis the necessity and importance of keeping the Senate-passed ban in the farm bill.
This year, right now is our chance to get it right. The bottom line is, opposition to the pending amendment is support for packer ownership of livestock. Any conferee who opposes the amendment is supporting packer greed over the independent producers need. Anyone who doesn’t support our amendment must think it’s fair to ask independent livestock producers to compete directly with corporations who can generate hundreds of millions of dollars to gain advantages over family farmers. If packers are allowed to compete dollar for dollar, it’s obvious who will lose. It’s obvious where we’ve been and what the big packers have in mind for independent producers.
The Senate amendment will inject into the marketplace greater competition, access, transparency and fairness. It will give small and medium-sized livestock operations greater access to bigger markets that are less subject to manipulation.
I’m a farmer. I know packers are an important piece of the rural economy. But they’re only a piece, they’re not the whole pie. The question is, should packers be packers or should packers be producers too?
Let me paint a final picture. The reason we keep sows in farrowing stalls is to protect the baby pigs. We obviously need sows, but if we let them out of the stalls, then there’s a chance they’ll crush the baby pigs with their weight, or worse, and make themselves even fatter. We need to build a strong farrowing stall for the packers in order to facilitate the health and well-being of independent livestock producers.
During Senate debate on the farm bill before and after Christmas, Sen. Grassley of Iowa and Sen. Johnson of South Dakota won two Senate votes for their amendment to limit packer ownership of livestock to 14 days before slaughter. The proposal is part of the Senate farm bill that is now being reconciled with the House’s version of farm legislation. Sen. Grassley and others held a news conference today to urge farm bill conferees to support the ban on packer ownership. They released a new analysis by farm-state economists regarding the legal and economic implications of the proposed ban. A copy of the paper prepared by John Connor, Peter C. Carstensen, Robert A. McEowen and Neil E. Harl follows here.