Sen. Chuck Grassley released a statement today regarding his effort to ensure that USDA protect independent livestock producers by enforcing the Packers and Stockyards Act.
In the statement which he will deliver this week on the floor of the Senate, Grassley says that new opposition to provisions in the Grain Standards Act is "a slap in the face" to the family farmer.
"There is no legitimate reason for the administration to oppose legislation that says USDA should do its job. During the last nine years, despite recommendations from the General Accounting Office and the Inspector General for USDA, the agency has abandoned its responsibility to help ensure competition in the meatpacking and livestock industry," Grassley said.
"Now we've got a bill that says to USDA, do what the General Accounting Office says, and all the White House can do is make lame excuses for why we shouldn't crack the whip on the USDA bureaucracy. The excuses don't add up. The truth is, USDA has failed to set priorities and use its power on behalf of family farmers. I support giving USDA more resources to do its job, and I'll work to get more money to the agency to hire more lawyers to work cases on the front end. There are a number of ways to supply more funding.
"Today, for the administration and others to say the only way they'll support the legislation this week is if more money is included in this particular package, is nothing more than an effort to kill the bill this year, and that's unforgivable for the independent producers who've already been ill-served by USDA on these competition matters for nearly a decade."
The House of Representatives on Friday unanimously approved legislation to reauthorize the Grain Standards and Warehouse Act. Lawmakers also included S.3091, Grassley's Packers and Stockyards Enforcement Improvement Act of 2000. Grassley introduced S.3091 last month based on new findings of the General Accounting Office presented in a report he requested. In testimony before the Senate Judiciary anti-trust subcommittee in September, Secretary Glickman himself said that he agreed with the recommendations of the GAO report. Grassley has been an outspoken advocate for a more aggressive response to ensuring competition in agriculture. The Senate is set to consider the House-approved package this week.
Last week, Sen. Tom Harkin announced that USDA would fully implement the GAO recommendations by April 1, 2001. Today Grassley asked why the administration would now oppose the legislation when it supports the goal of the legislation and says USDA will implement the recommendations by next April. Grassley said the problem is that USDA has said twice before that it would do a better job. Since nothing was accomplished after each of those previous pledges, he says it's time for a legislative mandate.
Grassley's effort to require USDA to fully enforce the Packers and Stockyards Act is supported by a number of farm groups, including the American Farm Bureau Federation, the National Farmers Union, and the National Farmers Organization.
Mr. President, I rise to talk about the objections raised by the White House and Senator Harkin regarding the U. S. Grain Standards Reauthorization Act of 2000. Their opposition is truly amazing to me - this bill is critical for our nation's family farmers, and it needs to be passed now.
Specifically, they oppose inclusion of the Packers and Stockyards Improvements Implementation Act in this bill. By way of background, this provision would require the Department of Agriculture to implement General Accounting Office recommendations to improve the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration's enforcement of the Packers and Stockyards Act. I'm sure you're all familiar with the recent GAO Report which found that USDA has been ineffective in promoting or protecting competition in the cattle and hog industries under the Act. Several factors severely undercut GIPSA's ability to investigate and enforce allegations of anti-competitive practices, including the fact that USDA has inadequate or non-existent investigation and case methods, practices and processes, and the fact that attorneys are only involved at the very end of an investigation. The Report recommended that USDA, in consultation with the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission, come up with investigation and case methods, practices and processes for competition-related allegations. The Report also recommended that GIPSA integrate the attorney and economist working relationship, with attorneys at the lead from the beginning of an investigation.
The problem is that USDA has known about these shortcomings since 1991, but done little to address them. In fact, in 1997, USDA's own Inspector General found that GIPSA needed to update and enhance its resources and regulations because of the increasingly concentrated livestock market. In 1991 and 1997, USDA acknowledged the problems and said they would fix them. So, if farmers' concerns about competition in the cattle and hog industry were such a priority for USDA, why did the Report say that USDA has neglected to make these crucial changes to its management and methodology to enforce the Act? Why did the GAO testify before my Subcommittee that potential violations of the Act may not have been pursued? This is why I introduced this bill - USDA cannot be trusted to take care of its mismanagement or lack of priorities. USDA cannot be trusted to make these changes in a prompt manner. We need legislation to require USDA to implement the GAO's recommendations, and to work with DOJ and FTC in the interim period to identify anti-competitive potential violations, because violations could be slipping through the cracks.
And now we're hearing that USDA can't implement the changes until they get more funding. This is a red herring if I ever saw one. The GAO Report clearly identifies systemic methodology, process and expertise problems within USDA's administration of the Packers and Stockyards program. This is not a funding problem! We can all be skeptical about these cries for more funding. Lack of priorities and unwillingness to enforce the Act are the problems. While Congress has generally increased funding for USDA GIPSA and OGC since 1991, USDA has never specifically asked for funding for antitrust lawyers for Packers and Stockyards competition-related activities. In fact, USDA has actually decreased lawyers dedicated to Packers and Stockyards Act matters from eight to five lawyers. Now, Congress hasn't decreased USDA GIPSA and OGC funding by 40 percent, so why is the Office of General Counsel reducing their Packers and Stockyards Act lawyers? Moreover, I don't need to talk about USDA's accountability problems with respect to what it is doing with USDA's funds - testimony by the GAO on USDA's financial management indicates that USDA has serious accounting problems and serious financial management deficiencies. USDA can't account for $5 billion! Is USDA serious? Now USDA and the White House tell us that they want more money to go down the USDA black hole so they can hire more attorneys? If USDA saw that it needed more antitrust lawyers for their Packers and Stockyards competition cases, it should have dedicated more of USDA's funds to hiring them. We've given USDA the funding it needs, but I'm willing to help get the agency additional funding when it can make the case that it's necessary. But at this point, this argument is a red herring and a way to distract from USDA's sorry record when it comes to enforcing the Packers and Stockyards Act.
We're also hearing that the White House opposes this provision because the recommendations would amount to a "codification of internal operating procedures" that could make findings subject to legal challenges, and that requiring consultation with the DOJ and FTC would "create a barrier to enforcement activities." What is the Administration talking about? First, the provision creates no cause of action, it just directs USDA to formulate these procedures. Congress directs agencies to do things all the time, this is no different. I don't believe this requirement would allow for the litigation that the Administration fears - in fact, agencies update and formulate their policies and procedures all the time. Their argument doesn't make any sense to me at all. And they claim that consultation with DOJ and FTC would create a barrier to Packers and Stockyards Act enforcement? Are they kidding? The provision requires USDA to work with DOJ and FTC to identify and investigate complaints of unfair and anti-competitive practices and enforce the Act for the one year implementation period. Why did we do this? Because USDA hasn't been able to effectively do it themselves. Working with DOJ and FTC will not be a barrier to enforcement, it will facilitate enforcement. DOJ and FTC are the experts on competition matters. USDA's own Inspector General said that in the 1997 USDA OIG Report. Again, these are red herrings.
The only reason why I see this opposition is that they don't want USDA to do the job it has under the Packers and Stockyards Act. They want to cover up the fact that their Administration did nothing to prioritize enforcement of the Act or enforce the laws on the books. And they want to continue to pay lip service to family farmers and independent producers. Well, farmers aren't stupid. Farmers know that this provision will help protect competition in the cattle and hog industries. Farmers know that USDA and this Administration have dropped the ball. This is why so many farm groups support this bill - to force USDA to do the job it already has.
I want to make this clear - this Administration is doing a disservice to our farmers by opposing this bill and this important provision to improve administration of the Packers and Stockyards Act. And the other side of the aisle is not doing anything to help move this bill. We need this bill to pass promptly and with no further political shenanigans. It is clear to me that this Administration and the other side are just playing games with family farmers for political gain, rather than working to help them. Shame on them.