Tom Harkin: “this amendment closes a loophole in the Packers and Stockyards Act by including livestock production contracts under its…”

“this amendment closes a loophole in the Packers and Stockyards Act by including livestock production contracts under its jurisdiction. It also provides livestock producers the ability to discuss the terms of the contract with certain people, such as their attorney, banker, landlord, and government agency charged with protecting a party to the contract. It does not say they have to but they are so allowed. Basically, since 1935, poultry producers have uncovered production contracts under the Packers and Stockyard Act but other livestock were not--for example, swine and cattle were not. But production contracts are becoming a bigger and bigger part of the establishment. Yet they are not covered under the Packers and Stockyards Act. The two largest farm organizations, the American Farm Bureau Federation and the National Farmers Unions, as well as dozens of other farm groups, support this amendment. It does not create any regulatory burden. As I said, we have had this provision under the Packers and Stockyards Act since 1935. If we can help Dairy Queen franchisees and gasoline franchisees, and if the poultry people have lived under this since 1935, I think it is time we give the cattle producers and the pork producers in this country the same kind of protections under the Packers and Stockyards Act.”