Farm Bill for NCBAers

[Sandhusker]

Sec. 10207. PHOHIBITION ON PACKERS OWNING, FEEDING, OR CONTROLLING LIVESTOCK

(a) IN GENERAL. – Section 202 of the Packers and Stockyards Act, 1921 (7 U.S.C. 192), is amended –

(1) by redesignating subsections (f) and (g) as subsections (g) and (h) respectively; and

(2) by inserting after subsection (e) the following: (f) Own or feed livestock directly, through a subsidiary, or through an arrangement that gives the packer operational, managerial, or supervisory control over the livestock, or over the farming operation that produces the livestock, to such an extent that the producer is no longer materially participating in the management of the operation with respect to the production of the livestock, except that this subsection shall not apply to—

(1) an arrangement entered into within 14 days (excluding any Saturday or Sunday) before slaughter of the livestock by a packer, a person acting through the packer, or a person that directly or indirectly controls, or is controlled by or under common control with, the packer;

(2) a cooperative or entity owned by a cooperative, if a majority of the ownership interest in the cooperative is held by active cooperative members that – "(A) own, feed, or control livestock; and "(B) provide the livestock to the cooperative for slaughter;

(3) a packer that is not required to report to the Secretary on each reporting day (as defined in section 212 of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1635a)) information on the price and quantity of livestock purchased by the packer; or

(4) a packer that owns 1 livestock processing plant; or"

Now, where does it say who can and who can't own livestock? Where is the language that hurts co-ops or marketing alliances? Where does it tell producers who they can and can't sell cattle to? Where is the truth behind all of those claims made by your leadership? Feel free to highlight, cut and paste, etc....

And you wonder why people say NCBA is carrying water for the packers?

 

[Sandhusker]

You get a chance to look at this, MRJ? Hanta? Maybe you could forward it on to NCBA headquartes, they seem a bit confused...

 

[ranch hand]

Another bump to the top for MRJ. :lol: :lol:

 

[Sandhusker]

Another bump to the top for MRJ. :lol: :lol:

Did you read her last post about your choices being legislated out of existence? Even though I provided the exact wording straight from the Farm Bill, she sticks to her NCBA propaganda. This is the exact type of misguided faith - ignoring actual facts - that is going to wreck the apple cart for everybody.

She doesn't realize exactly how much is at stake here. This is serious business.

 

[mrj]

Sorry there, banker man, but I'm not sticking with any propaganda, nor quoting what you claim is NCBA policy. But simply repeating the fact that there ARE some cattle producers who say that passage of the Competition Title WILL end marketing practices they find beneficial to their operations.

Also, why should we trust what your group SAYS will be the effect of the law? Do laws ALWAYS end up as they are written, and rules to implement the laws NEVER turn it into something with 'unintended' consequences, oftentimes detrimental to those affected by the law?????

mrj

 

[Sandhusker]

Sorry there, banker man, but I'm not sticking with any propaganda, nor quoting what you claim is NCBA policy. But simply repeating the fact that there ARE some cattle producers who say that passage of the Competition Title WILL end marketing practices they find beneficial to their operations.

Also, why should we trust what your group SAYS will be the effect of the law? Do laws ALWAYS end up as they are written, and rules to implement the laws NEVER turn it into something with 'unintended' consequences, oftentimes detrimental to those affected by the law?????

mrj

Unless you're pointing out inaccuracies in an arguement, repeating something somebody said generally means you are agreeing with them. Are you? If so, where in the title does it hint of that?

Why trust what ANY group says when you can read the legislation yourself - especially when it is so short?

 

[Sandhusker]

Sorry there, banker man, but I'm not sticking with any propaganda, nor quoting what you claim is NCBA policy. But simply repeating the fact that there ARE some cattle producers who say that passage of the Competition Title WILL end marketing practices they find beneficial to their operations.

Also, why should we trust what your group SAYS will be the effect of the law? Do laws ALWAYS end up as they are written, and rules to implement the laws NEVER turn it into something with 'unintended' consequences, oftentimes detrimental to those affected by the law?????

mrj

Unless you're pointing out inaccuracies in an arguement, repeating something somebody said generally means you are agreeing with them. Are you? If so, where in the title does it hint of that?

Why trust what ANY group says when you can read the legislation yourself - especially when it is so short?

 

[mrj]

Sandhusker, do you honestly believe that your law, AS WRITTEN HERE, will NOT be dissected, parsed, diced, sliced, and maybe even grated, to suit whomever chooses to use it for their agenda of the moment?

If so, I think I can find a bridge to nowhere you desperately need to buy at whatever price I choose to set!!!!


mrj

 

[Sandhusker]

Sandhusker, do you honestly believe that your law, AS WRITTEN HERE, will NOT be dissected, parsed, diced, sliced, and maybe even grated, to suit whomever chooses to use it for their agenda of the moment?

If so, I think I can find a bridge to nowhere you desperately need to buy at whatever price I choose to set!!!!


mrj

So now NCBA has a crystal ball and knows exactly how the law will be changed? Oh, I forgot, SOME PRODUCERS have a crystal ball?

Should Congress stop writing laws because they all will all be dissected, parsed, diced, sliced and maybe even grated?

 

[Cinch]

Sandhusker, do you honestly believe that your law, AS WRITTEN HERE, will NOT be dissected, parsed, diced, sliced, and maybe even grated, to suit whomever chooses to use it for their agenda of the moment?

If so, I think I can find a bridge to nowhere you desperately need to buy at whatever price I choose to set!!!!


mrj

Outlandish!! NCBA has been very vocal about the packer ban being bad because it will harm marketing alliances. There isn't even the least little hook here that could possibly suggest that.

R-CALF has called NCBA liars on account of it. If it isn't a lie, where is NCBA's response?

The truth. NCBA knows they have been called on their bluff, and they have folded. At least in public, they aren't sticking to this story anymore.

 

[Mike]

Sorry there, banker man, but I'm not sticking with any propaganda, nor quoting what you claim is NCBA policy. But simply repeating the fact that there ARE some cattle producers who say that passage of the Competition Title WILL end marketing practices they find beneficial to their operations.

Also, why should we trust what your group SAYS will be the effect of the law? Do laws ALWAYS end up as they are written, and rules to implement the laws NEVER turn it into something with 'unintended' consequences, oftentimes detrimental to those affected by the law?????

mrj

Why don't you just READ the danged thing? :roll: :lol: :shock: :???:

 

[Sandhusker]

If she read it, she might realize that NCBA was full of crap, and her world would no longer make any sense. Just can't take that chance.....

 

[ocm]

An identical letter to the one below was sent to Peterson and Goodlatte.
Notice how polite they are.



The Honorable George W. Bush
President
The White House
Washington, D. C. 20500

Dear President Bush:

In light of repeated misinformation surrounding the proposed prohibition on packer ownership of livestock with the Farm Bill, we write to correct the record, and to urge your support for a targeted ban. The current language included in Title X of the Senate Farm Bill will finally restore a level playing field between livestock producers and large packers.

The U.S. steer and heifer slaughter industry is dominated by just four meat packers. That control has enabled the largest meat packers to limit producers' access to markets and gain an unfair price advantage, thus damaging market integrity. The Senate's Farm Bill language that bans packer ownership of cattle for longer than 14 days before slaughter will prevent this dominant industry from taking further advantage of that control.

Contrary to some reports, the Senate language does not harm producers' ability to use forward contracts or to use value-added marketing programs. In fact, Section 10207 of Title X explicitly establishes that producers can enter into contracting agreements, and then protects those agreements by requiring producer ownership and participation in the management of their livestock production. Additionally, Section 10207 exempts packers that own only one plant, that slaughter less than 125,000 cattle annually and packers that are owned by a producer cooperative.

As the U.S. cattle industry continues to contract at an alarming rate, it is imperative that Congress and your Administration take action to protect competitive markets now. Failure to act could severely damage the already jeopardized cattle industry. We urge you to reject the misinformation campaign regarding these provisions, and support the Senate's Title X language in the final version of the Farm Bill.

Sincerely,

Barbara Cubin Stephanie Herseth Sandlin
Member of Congress Member of Congress

 

[PORKER]

Link to Farm bill comments ;
http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/!ut/p/_s.7_0_A/7_0_1UH?contentidonly=true&contentid=2008/03/0066.xml

http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/!ut/p/_s.7_0_A/7_0_1UH?contentidonly=true&contentid=2008/03/0066.xml