• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Republicans Silent--Harkin Calls For Answers

Econ101

Well-known member
HARKIN REQUESTS FOLLOW-UP INVESTIGATION INTO USDA’S FAILURE TO ENFORCE THE PACKERS AND STOCKYARDS ACT
Requests OIG probe into USDA’s Office of General Counsel’s failure to enforce law designed to prevent anti-competitive practices in livestock and poultry markets
TUESDAY, JULY 18, 2006
PHOTO, VIDEO, OR MORE INFO AVAILABLE
(See below)

WASHINGTON, DC – In a letter to the Department of Agriculture (USDA) Inspector General (OIG) Phyllis Fong, Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) today called for a follow-up investigation into the Department’s failure to enforce the competition provisions of the Packers and Stockyards Act. Harkin’s request today asks the OIG to determine if USDA’s legal arm, the Office of General Counsel (OGC), is failing to help pursue investigations and enforcement actions against anti-competitive practices in the marketplace.

A Harkin-commissioned OIG investigation released earlier this year found widespread failure by USDA’s Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) in enforcing the Packers and Stockyards Act for over five years and efforts within GIPSA to conceal its inactivity. Questioning by Harkin at an oversight hearing of the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry showed virtually no communication and coordination by USDA’s OGC with GIPSA personnel to enforce the Packers and Stockyards Act’s competition protections.

“America’s livestock producers deserve to know that USDA’s lawyers are not asleep on the job.” Harkin said. “It’s unacceptable that GIPSA failed in its responsibility to investigate anti-competitive practices and OGC simply looked the other way. That is why I’m asking the Inspector General examine OGC’s capabilities and commitment to enforcing the law.”

USDA’s GIPSA has the responsibility to initiate and develop investigations into complaints of unfair, deceptive or anti-competitive practices in the livestock and poultry marketplace. OGC is the legal counsel for all of USDA and its agencies, and has the responsibility to provide legal advice and representation to aid in investigating cases and pursuing enforcement actions against violations of the Packers and Stockyards Act.

“OGC shares the responsibility with GIPSA to enforce the Packers and Stockyards Act,” Harkin said. “If OGC is not committed to enforcing the law, making needed changes at GIPSA won’t mean anything. Both GIPSA and OGC must actively work together.”

Previous audits conducted by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) in 2000 and OIG in 1997 and again in 2006 all revealed that inadequate coordination between GIPSA and OGC severely undermined enforcement of the Packers and Stockyards Act. GIPSA has pledged to improve coordination and seek legal counsel from OGC; however, it is unclear if OGC is currently committed to pursuing investigations involving anti-competitive practices.

Harkin requested that OIG examine the following:

• Determine if at any time OGC has pressured or discouraged present or past GIPSA employees from pursuing investigations of anti-competitive practices.

• Evaluate if the working relationship between OGC and GIPSA broke down, preventing GIPSA from referring cases to OGC or causing GIPSA to develop bureaucratic systems to avoid even having to work with OGC.

• Determine if OGC has the staffing and professional expertise to handle complex anti-competitive investigations.

• Evaluate if conflicts or disagreements arise over interpretation of the Packers and Stockyards Act between GIPSA and OGC that could undermine the development and execution of anti-competitive investigations.

• Assess whether OGC is taking too strict or narrow interpretation of the Packers and Stockyards Act and case law, preventing meritorious investigations of anti-competitive practices from moving forward.

Harkin has introduced the Competitive and Fair Agricultural Markets Act of 2006, legislation designed to bring broad and sweeping changes to USDA to more effectively enforce the Packers and Stockyards Act. Harkin’s bill would reorganize USDA by creating an Office of Special Counsel whose sole purpose is to investigate and prosecute violations of the Packers and Stockyards Act. This reorganization would allow for improved enforcement of the Act by removing layers of bureaucracy at USDA. For more information on this legislation, please visit: Harkin Legislation

###
 

agman

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
SH, MRJ, are you still doubters?

Why no concern from the NCBA?

Same old political fool listening to the same old complaints and complainers. Why would or should the NCBA waste their time on that nonsense?
 

Econ101

Well-known member
agman said:
Sandhusker said:
SH, MRJ, are you still doubters?

Why no concern from the NCBA?

Same old political fool listening to the same old complaints and complainers. Why would or should the NCBA waste their time on that nonsense?

Agman, careful there, you may be eating those words.

If the NCBA can only represent the packer's interests and not be able to support producers against packers, why are they masquerading as a producer outfit?

Seems about as disingenuous as some of your posts, Agman.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
agman said:
Sandhusker said:
SH, MRJ, are you still doubters?

Why no concern from the NCBA?

Same old political fool listening to the same old complaints and complainers. Why would or should the NCBA waste their time on that nonsense?

You call a government agency not only repeatedly failing in their duties but blocking any attempt for those duties to be carried out "nonsense"? If that is not what happened, please enlighten us.
 

the chief

Well-known member
Agman:
Same old political fool listening to the same old complaints and complainers. Why would or should the NCBA waste their time on that nonsense?[/quote]

From your viewpoint, agman, I can see that PSA is NONSENSE. That is because it would be detrimental to the packing industry. I would hope other producers will keep this in mind WHEN reading your lectures. :roll:
 

agman

Well-known member
the chief said:
Agman:
Same old political fool listening to the same old complaints and complainers. Why would or should the NCBA waste their time on that nonsense?[/quote]

From your viewpoint, agman, I can see that PSA is NONSENSE. That is because it would be detrimental to the packing industry. I would hope other producers will keep this in mind WHEN reading your lectures. :roll:

Where did I ever say or imply the PSA was nonsense? That is just one more of your many statements that you cannot back up.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
agman said:
the chief said:
Agman:
Same old political fool listening to the same old complaints and complainers. Why would or should the NCBA waste their time on that nonsense?[/quote]

From your viewpoint, agman, I can see that PSA is NONSENSE. That is because it would be detrimental to the packing industry. I would hope other producers will keep this in mind WHEN reading your lectures. :roll:

Where did I ever say or imply the PSA was nonsense? That is just one more of your many statements that you cannot back up.

"]Same old political fool listening to the same old complaints and complainers. "

Who are the complainers, Agman? What are the complaints?

GIPSA is so devoid of competent economists that are allowed to work on the real issues that they have been cited for it time and time again in their reviews.

The economists they do have (McBride) in positions of responsibility gave the hog study to N.C. Vukina after he showed in his poultry paper he was willing to put out trash if that is what he was paid to do. That hog study was approved by JoAnn Waterfield, McBride, and their attorney on the committee,Offutt.

Can you refute any of this, Agman, or do you want to continue selling out producers with the trash you promote?

If you are so smart, Agman, what is the flaw in data sets in the initial hog study and why?

Show us how smart you are, Agman.


Here it is, just to help you out, Agman:
Return to Recent News ReleasesReturn to News Services

Media Contact:
Dr. Tom Vukina, 919/515-5864
Mick Kulikowski, News Services, 919/515-3470

Sept. 15, 2004

NC State Receives $465K Grant to Study Swine Marketing

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

North Carolina State University agricultural economists have received $465,000 to study different types of marketing arrangements in the swine and pork industries.

NC State is a part of the consortium of researchers headed by the Research Triangle Institute (RTI), which received a $4.3 million contract from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Grain Inspection Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) to study livestock and meat marketing for hogs, cattle and sheep.

Dr. Tomislav Vukina, NC State professor of agricultural and resource economics, says he and colleagues at NC State – Dr. Michael Wohlgenant, William Neal Reynolds Distinguished Professor of agricultural and resource economics, and Dr. Nick Piggott, associate professor of agricultural and resource economics – will take a close look at the implications that the changing organizational structure of the swine and pork industries exerts on producers’ and consumers’ costs and benefits.

The researchers will take mounds of data collected by RTI – surveys of all those involved in livestock and meat production and marketing, from farmers and packers to food service firms, exporters and retailers, as well as their individual transaction data – and conduct various economic analyses, including:

* Identifying and determining the use of emerging types of marketing arrangements such as production and marketing contracts;
* Determining terms of the marketing arrangements and their availability to entities of different sizes and in different geographic locations;
* Determining the long-term implications of swine marketing arrangements on operating costs; animal and meat quality; marketing risks; prices of livestock and meat; and the structure of the livestock and meatpacking industries.

Vukina says the study is important to North Carolina because of its multibillion-dollar livestock industry. He’s especially interested in comparing and contrasting the North Carolina model – dominated by vertically integrated companies which own everything involved in producing pork and which often contract out segments of production to independent farmers – with the Midwestern model in which small farms raise pigs and sell them at auctions.

“This study will give us a better understanding of how the industry operates and how all the different segments function,” Vukina said. “Although there will be no policy proposals in this project, it will provide insight about similar changes occurring in other industrial organizations in agriculture.”
 
Top