From the CEO
Colin Woodall
CHUCK KNOWS BEST?
A tried-and-true strategy we utilize in Washington, D. C., is building coalitions of Representatives and Senators to work on advancing our policy priorities. We find our success improves when a large number of these members of Congress band together and push for action. However, we are always careful in whom we ask to join these coalitions because one wrong name could keep many good ones from signing on or keeping our request from being considered. We are also constantly looking for coalitions being built to support actions against us. One such coalition has formed in the U. S. Senate to support the“ Family Grocery and Farmer Relief Act.”
Democrat Senators Chuck Schumer from New York, Peter Welch from Vermont, Cory Booker from New Jersey, Elizabeth Warren from Massachusetts, Bernie Sanders from Vermont, Ruben Gallego from Arizona, Jeff Merkley from Oregon, Brian Schatz from Hawaii, Dick Durbin from Illinois, Ed Markey from Massachusetts, Andy Kim from New Jersey, Chris Murphy from Connecticut, and Sheldon Whitehouse from Rhode Island are the coalition behind this bill which you’ ve heard called the“ Schumer Bill” in many agriculture new stories. Don’ t let the real name of this legislation fool you. Representatives, Senators and their staff spend countless hours coming up with novel names for their legislation in order to draw attention to it. It’ s a well-known Capitol Hill pastime.
We treat every piece of legislation like a used car. The paint might look good and the car might have new tires, but you need to pop the hood, look under the car, and crank it to make sure it runs the way you want it to. The same goes with legislation. The name might sound great, but you must read every word, check every reference to existing regulations, and know that the difference between the words“ shall” and“ may” can make legislation do different things than what the title might suggest. While“ Family Grocery and Farmer Relief Act” sounds great, nothing in this bill achieves relief for farmers or for family grocery bills.
The main provision of the bill is focused on breaking up the packers. More specifically, it requires packers to choose which protein they want to process, thus eliminating the ability of companies to process beef, pork and / or poultry. I’ ve yet to figure out how that is going to help competition. That would be like the government telling John Deere they can only produce swathers; New Holland they can only produce balers; and Kubota they can only produce tractors. The legislation goes on to cap the number of cattle a feedlot can sell to any one packer. The government dictating how many cattle a feeder
can sell to a packer sounds more like an artificial restraint of commerce than it does a free market where willing buyers and willing sellers can enter into business deals. NCBA consistently opposes government intervention in the market like the provisions found in the Schumer bill.
While this coalition of Senators aren’ t ones we typically go to for cattle issues, they do represent states with cow-calf producers and NCBA members. Our members in these states are right to expect their Senators to engage with them before cooking up an elixir that doesn’ t cure any illness. For many years, NCBA has fought similar proposals allowing government a bigger role in the cattle markets. A great example is what we have long called the“ GIPSA Rule.”
The“ GIPSA Rule” goes back to language included in the 2008 Farm Bill that wanted to change the Packers and Stockyards Act( PSA). While we have supported commonsense changes to the PSA over time, we have always maintained that full funding for USDA’ s Packers and Stockyards Division would give the agency the resources it needs to do the job as Congress intended. That includes staff who can conduct audits, investigations, and recommend cases for prosecution. In short, full funding would allow the PSA to be effective at curbing bad behavior by market participants. They have the authority now, they just don’ t have the money and manpower to get it done. What good is adding more PSA regulations to enforce if they can’ t currently enforce what they have? Sounds like typical government, so that is why we have to expose it and make people aware of how ridiculous the idea is. Congress’“ power of the purse” gives these Senators the authority to provide USDA with adequate funding to do their jobs. Interestingly enough, they would have support from Republicans and NCBA to get that done. Ensuring that the Packers and Stockyards Division is well funded and staffed would go a long way in working on cattle industry competition issues.
If the Senators behind the“ Schumer Bill” coalition don’ t like that suggestion, we have any number of other actions they could take to help producers. Pass the rest of the Farm Bill, secure a workable guest worker program, support delisting the gray wolf, and many more. Legislating for the sake of legislating never works out for the government or those covered under the new rules and regulations. Many of these Senators are power players in their party. We suggest they use that power for good rather than chasing legislation that won’ t come close to providing relief to anybody, much less cattle producers and consumers.
The government dictating how many cattle a feeder can sell to a packer sounds more like an artificial restraint of commerce than it does a free market where willing buyers and willing sellers can enter into business deals.
8 MAY 2026 www. NCBA. org