Packers and Stockyards Act

So right to repair.

And then I'll also mention something that's even more arcane called the Packers and Stockyards Act, two things that are in the Real New Deal.

Right to repair simply says that farmers... should be able to repair their own tractors, their own combines, and their own equipment.

They are prevented from doing so now with the more recent generations of farm equipment and tractors are so thoroughly computerized that farmers who are notoriously good tinkerers at getting under the hood, figuring things out, maybe on their own, maybe with a local repair shop, They can't even begin to do that now because whether it's John Deere or Kubota or New Holland, the complexity of it requires that they first have certain software and access to certain codes to even figure out the source of the problem.

And once they bought it, the manufacturers are obligated to provide them with the software, with the codes that are needed for them to figuratively get under the hood and fix their own tractors or to have local people do it really simple and really compelling for city folks who don't know anything about farming because when they hear that a farmer spent a hundred thousand dollars on a john deere tractor and then he's not allowed to fix it himself and is stuck waiting two weeks while his hay is molding for a john deere repairman they get it They get it in cities and countryside.

The other piece of legislation that's kind of a no-brainer, it's a bit more complicated.

It also relates to farming, and the Real New Deal goes way beyond farming, is reforming the Packers and Stockyards Act.

This is a 100-year-old law that set down the rules between farmers raising hogs, chickens, turkeys, whatever, and the big processors who buy them from them.

Um, thank you for that question, and, and when I think about the AMS agency, um, it's really unique in terms of how, uh, diverse in scope and, uh, authority, uh, that, that, that agency administers.

Um, over the, over the course of about 100-plus years, Congress has passed about 50 different statutes that now reside within the AMS, uh, jurisdiction, and, uh, one of those is the Packers and Stockyards Act from 1921.

Uh, and that program is, is, is healthy and viable and, uh, kinda tip of the spear right now for some of the work the agency is doing.

Uh, the, the ultimate charge under that authority is to make sure our producers have a, a fair and level playing field in the marketplace, uh, that they're getting, uh, fair and transparent, uh, prices and values for, value for their livestock.

Um, I'll, I'll also share with you on the, on the AMS side, you, if you think about anything from transportation, from, from railways to barges, um, you, you can think about, uh, industrial hemp, um, all the different research and promotion programs, uh, specialty crops, science and tech programs.

Uh, the, the portfolio is just incredibly diverse, and it's so impactful to our producers, and every day, uh, there, I learn something new, uh, working with the AMS team.

I, I'm glad you brought up the Packers and Stockyards Act, and, uh, I, I follow up there, and I know you've been one of the main leaders as well on, on the new world screw worm issues and the fight against that, uh, with the USDA, uh, along the southern border, for instance.

But I, I guess where I'm going with this is obviously beef and the cattle industry has been all over the news here in recent months and weeks, and so... and there's been a lot of talk about, you know, uh, strengthening the Packers and Stockyards Act and things of that nature.

And let's give credits back for farmers to keep back heifers and ranchers to put those heifers back on grass and be able to start feeding ourselves.

Second, we have to take on, we have to strengthen the Packers and Stockyards Act.

Right now, there's a little piece in there.

Biden tried to get it through, then they withdrew the rule.

Secretary Ross is talking about withdrawing all the Biden rules.

But the fact is the Packers and Stockyards Act was passed in 1921 to protect farmers.

We have the Sherman Act, the Clayton Act, and the Packers and Stockyards Act in antitrust.

And we need to have rules.

You know, 75 years ago, there were people advocating for this issue because there were 20 processors that had about 50% of, of the, the market share there, and it's just gradually grown and grown and grown over time.

And, and that's something that, you know, there, there's laws in, on place for that, uh, the Packers and Stockyards Act back again, like Tyler said, almost 100 years ago, and they're just not enforcing some of those laws.

So it seems like the government's wanting to pick and choose where they can have a heavy hand, and then where they, "You know, maybe we'll look the other way when we're not enforcing some of these laws." And that's one of the things I think that has producers like Tyler and I most frustrated.

Um, I, I kinda wish that same old story wasn't, wasn't happening again in this industry.

I mean, I don't know how many seed suppliers or fertilizer suppliers on your farm that you can access.

But, you know, if it's Cortiva or Bayer, It's not many, right? And I think just like we broke up Standard Oil, just like we broke the Packers in 2021, or in 1921, I think that in 1980, 1979, with Carter's grain embargo against Soviet Union, which inspired the whole tractorcade and all of that.

You know, in 1933, agriculture prevailed.

In 1980 or 79, whatever, agriculture didn't make the changes.

Senate Agriculture Committee Chair John Bozeman ruled several last-minute amendments out of order during committee work, including proposals from Iowa Senators Joni Ernst and Chuck Grassley.

Ernst sought to address state animal confinement rules, while Grassley wanted to end USDA delays on the Packers and Stockyards Act reforms.

North Dakota Senator John Hoban says reopening the titles could force the committee to start over, potential delaying the bill further.

Delaney, this week, as we sat on a webinar to talk more about some of those ag policy movements, was maybe some speculation that a farm bill won't be able to be passed this year.

I mean, you can read the whole executive order.

We, we don't, we're not gonna read the whole thing here on, on our, um, on our podcast today, but, um, but it, it, it, it deals with, um, competition, talks about enforcement of the packyard, uh, packyard, Packers and Stockyards Act.

Um, it includes, um, expanding market opportunity, but a- a- and so, so I've gotten emails from people, "Oh, wow, Trump's finally got your message about, you know, letting farmers sell to their, you know, to their neighborhoods and things like that." And, um, I mean, there are people that are, that are just, um, ecstatic about this, but when you, when you look at the actual verbiage of the executive order, I don't know, Sena, we didn't count as you went through it, we didn't count how many times the executive order says the phrase, "To the extent of federal law," but it's-

Oh, yeah

so, so i- i- so i- i- it, it's not just processing ra- what I'm getting at.

This is, this is a fairly far-reaching, uh, or, or eclectic blend of things.

Of course, you know, the, the Packers and Stockyards Act, I mean, um, you know, s- uh, uh, ranchers have been complaining about collusion within the, um, Packers and Stockyards Act.

You know, that the Big Four, they collude, and they set prices and all this stuff.

Tell me about the amendment that you were looking to attach to the Farm Bill as it made its way out of the Senate Ag Committee.

It was centered on Packers and Stockyard Act and a stronger enforcement of Packers and Stockyards Act.

Is that correct?

Well, first of all, I want to compliment the President for or issuing an executive order for greater enforcement factors in the Stockyards Act.