Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

STATEMENT OF ROBERT H. LOUNSBERRY, IOWA SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE

As a leading livestock state, with currently over 20 million head of hogs and cattle on our farms, Iowa is vitally concerned in any decision made by or affectthe Packers and Stockyards Commission and involving the marketing of livestock in Iowa.

We also recognize the right, in a Democratic society, of individual and cooperative livestock salebarn (auction) operators to be free to run their enterprises with the least amount of government interference. They should have a voice in selecting the type of marketing fees which will provide them with a reasonable margin of profit and will also provide a fair and equitable service to the customers they serve.

We believe that in the past, the Packers and Stockyards Commission has sometimes acted in an arbitrary manner in setting auction commission fees.

However, we do not believe the Packers and Stockyards Commission should be completely removed from its regulatory role. Rather than total de regulation, we would suggest that a more cooperative and flexible attitude be taken in dealing with auction market owners to allow for unusual and mitigating circumstances and for the geographical locality which is served. A public posting of fees, which have been filed with and approved by Packers and Stockyards, should also be prominently posted for the benefit of all. Thank you.

ARKANSAS CATTLEMEN'S ASSOCIATION,

Little Rock, Ark., March 8, 1978. Hon. RAY THORNTON, U.S. Congressman, Washington, D.O.

DEAB RAY: Thank you for your letter of February 23, 1978 relating to H.R. 9482. We have been extremely busy with our convention which ended last week. During the convention, the following resolution was presented to the membership of the Arkansas Cattlemen's Association and was passed during the business session :

"Be it resolved that the Arkansas Cattlemen's Association supports the free enterprise system that promotes competition. We favor the general deregulation of the rate making authority of the Packers and Stockyard Administration over the public livestock markets. We feel that the commission structure at any public livestock market, as long as it shows uniformity and is nondiscriminatory can best be structured by the present owner.”

Due to the fact that testimony on H.R. 9482 is scheduled for March 14 before the Subcommittee, we will not have ample time to prepare the proper written or oral testimony. I am enclosing two (2) copies of this letter and you may wish to present this to the Subcommittee at the hearing. Very truly yours,

JIM SANDERS, Executive Vice President.

STATEMENT OF
ARKANSAS FARM BUREAU FEDERATION

As you know, the Arkansas Farm Bureau Federation is a

general farm organization made up of 76 County Farm Bureaus

representing over 90,000 member families.

Twenty-five

thousand of these member families derive a major portion of

their income from the sale of livestock.

Our producer members

have shown an interest in current developments and possible

changes in the charges for the marketing services they receive

from auction markets.

Livestock is a major source of income

to many thousands of people in Arkansas who need a dependable

efficient marketing systein.

'The livestock marketing sector and particularly the auction

market system in Arkansas is of great importance and provides a needed and valuable service to our state's livestock economy. This point is evidenced by the fact that approximately 90 to 95

percent of all cattle marketed in the state are sold through

auction markets; a similar nigh percentage also applies to

hogs and pigs marketed in the state.

Not only do livestock

producers rely on local auction markets as an outlet for their

products, but these markets also serve as

a price determining

point for sales outside regular marketing channels and provide a stimulus to many local economies. The necessity to keep

market outlets for livestock (or any other product) operating

in a climate of free and open competition is basic to the

economic principles on which this country was founded and is

in the best interest of producers, market operators and

consumers.

While regulations under the Packers and Stockyards

to

Act were promulgated to protect livestock producers, such regulations should not be constructed or construed so as hamper normal marketing practices nor to restrict or reduce marketing services provided by the various livestock market

agencies.

The issue before us concerns a proposal to eliminate

certain livestock markets from rate regulation under the

Packers and Stockyards Act.

We would agree with this ammendment

to the Packers and Stockyards Act on the grounds that our

members have expressed deep concern with overregulation by

government agencies.

This ammendment would remove certain

regulations which at times have proved burdensome and costly to both the regulatory agency and the livestock marketing industry. Adoption of this amnendment could also provide greater

flexibility in rate setting and could allow market operators

to choose the rate structure and schedule which best suits

the needs of their market area.

Both of these objectives are

being sought by livestock market operators in our state and

around the country.

As an organization representing livestock producers, we would like to point out several concerns regarding the effects

of eliminating regulatory authority on rates charged by live

stock markets.

Based solely on 1977 statistics, adoption of the

amendment would remove all but three of Arkansas' fifty live

stock markets from rate regulation.

We would hope that this

measure would allow open competition between markets and that

rates charged would continue to be reasonable and fair.

However, with no rate restrictions in effect, we would wonder

whether or not some rate supervision might be necessary in

case of dispute or appeals on the part of producers and other

[blocks in formation]

system of commerce which promotes open competition. While there is a need to eliminate overregulation in American agriculture, the Packers and Stockyards Administration still has a very

important role in providing protection to livestock producers

from unfair trade practices.

We have and continue to support

the vigorous enforcement of the Packers and Stockyards Act. The removal of markets from rate regulation under the Act is a matter which should encourage open competition, but we would urge that careful consideration be given the concerns expressed above as they affect implementation of this proposed

ammendment.

ansas ivestock ssociation

2044 FILLMORE / TOPEKA. KANSAS 66604 / TELEPHONE 9131232.9358 Owns and Publishes The Kansas Stockman magazine and KLA News & Market Report newsletter

COMMENTS

OF THE

KANSAS LIVESTOCK ASSOCIATION

ON

HR 9482

March 20, 1978

The Kansas Livestock Association, a voluntary membership organization repre

senting over 7,000 cattlemen, swine and sheep producers in Kansas, submits the

following comments relative to HR 9482.

The Kansas Livestock Association favors the concept of removing much of the

regulatory authority of the Packers & Stockyards Administration over tariffs charged

by livestock auction markets.

However, it's our belief that the interests of both

livestock producers and auction market operators would be best served by returning

livestock auction business to a free market approach in the determination of com

missions charged for livestock sales.

The industry has undergone substantial change since the present regulatory

authority over stockyards was

implemented in 1921.

At that time the Act was bas

ically directed toward the 72 terminal stockyards which handled a greater percentage

of livestock sales than they do now.

However, since that era when the act was passed, livestock production - because

of increased population, efficiency and demand – has increased dramatically.

Live

stock auction market outlets have also increased substantially.

In fact, there are

presently approximately 2,000 auction markets and stockyards under regulation by P&SA.

OFFICERS
FLOYD FAIRLEIGH, President, Scott City J. RICHARD PRINGLE, President-Elect, Yates Center

JACK VANIER, Immediate Past President, Brookville
DIRECTORS
J. HAROLD CARSWELL, Alton
PAT KOONS, Lakin
SCOTT REITER, Winfield

GEORGE TISCHHAUSER, Carlton
JIM HARPER, Ashland
FRANCIS NUTSCH, Washington
GEORGE SCHLICKAU, Haven

LEWIS TRENTMAN, Sublette
REX HEADRICK, Jewell
HARLAN OLTJEN, Everest
ROB SMITH, Erie

JIM UNGLES, Satanta
BEN KELLER, Winona
NATHAN PIKE, Minneola
KEN STIELOW, Paradise

JIM WIGHT, Burlingame
STAFF
JOHN MEETZ, Executive Vice President
VIRGIL HUSEMAN, Executive Secretary, Feedlot Division

DEE LIKES, Executive Secretary, Cow-Call/Stocker Division
KENDAL FRAZIER, Director of Communications
CRAIG SHARP, Director of Member Services

J. C. BARR, Managing Editor

Even if it could be argued that there was a just need for governmental regula

tion in the earlier years of this century, it must be admitted that the economic and

innovative changes in the livestock industry have increased competition to the point

where further regulation of auction market tariffs is unnecessary.

Livestock producers have numerous alternative methods by which to market their

products.

Producers today may participate in the increasingly common practice of

selling direct to order buyers, feedlots, packers or other farmers, in addition to

taking their livestock to any of the numerous auction markets or terminal stockyards

that exist.

Livestock markets should not be subjected to the same theory of regulation

which is applied to public utilities where it is argued that consumers of these

services would have little choice of alternative services if no governmental regu

lation were practiced.

Competition is the best "regulator" of the price and services available to pro

ducers.

In a free market where the users of these services can express their pre

ferences the auction market operators can hope for success only by superior perform

ance.

Hence, every market operator must always be engaged in seeking to provide

better service at a more economical price than his competitor.

No third party (government) can correctly evaluate the price of the service;

the mutually agreed upon price is evidence that the subjective values of both the

buyer and the seller have been satisfied.

A fair price is what satisfies both par

ties at the time the "sale" (for services) is consummated.

Competition is a natural phenomenon observable in the actions of choice making

individuals.

Livestock farmers and ranchers are very familiar with it because it

daily sets the market price of their product.

Government cannot legislate the free

market or create competition.

Neither should the P&SA decide an auction market's

commission rate based on the bureaucracy's opinion of what a "reasonable revenue

requirements or a "fair return on investment" should be.

The Kansas Livestock Association submits that both the taxpayer and the entire

livestock industry would be better served if P&SA authority to regulate livestock

sales tariffs were removed.

We respectfully urge the removal of P&SA authority in

this area either by administrative action or by passage of appropriate legislation.

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »