Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS -- (Senate - January 09, 2007)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself, Mr. FEINGOLD, Mr. KOHL, Mr. HARKIN, Mr. HAGEL, and Mr. LEAHY):
S. 221. A bill amend title 9, United States Code, to provide for greater fairness in the arbitration process relating to livestock and poultry contracts; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise to re-introduce the Fair Contracts for Growers Act of 2007. This bill would simply instill fairness into contractual dealings between farmers and processors. It ensures that parties to a dispute related to agricultural contracts have a true choice of venues.
I introduce this legislation because I believe that anti-competitive activity has become a grave threat to the family farmer. During the last Farm Bill debate, I brought this same bill forward, along with several others. Despite this policy passing the Senate, remarkably the final Farm Bill included no provisions to address concentration.
So, earlier this year, I announced that I will be putting forward a package of bills that will focus on anti-competitive activity in the agriculture industry. This bill is the first step of my agriculture concentration agenda.
Today's legislation is one piece of the puzzle to help stop the unfair impact that vertical integration is having on the family farmer. In the last several years we've seen a tremendous shift in agriculture toward contract production. Under many of these contract arrangements, large, vertically integrated agribusiness firms have the power to dictate the terms of ``take-it-or-leave-it' production contracts to farmers.
Then, when there is a dispute between the packer and the family farmer, and the contract between the two includes an arbitration clause, the family farmer has no alternative but to accept arbitration to resolve the dispute. These clauses limit farmers' abilities to pursue remedies in court, even when violations of Federal or State law are at issue. This mandatory arbitration process puts the farmer at a see disadvantage. Even in a situation where discrimination or fraud is suspected, a farmer's only recourse under such a contract is to submit to arbitration. The farmer cannot seek redress in court, even if the result is bankruptcy or financial ruin.
Make no mistake, arbitration is very useful in certain situations. It reduces the load on our courts, and can save parties the expense of drawn-out litigation. This bill would not rule out arbitration-just forced arbitration.
The Fair Contracts for Growers Act would amend the Packers and Stockyards Act to require that any contract arbitration be voluntarily agreed upon by both parties to settle disputes at the time a dispute arises, not when the contract is signed. This would allow farmers the opportunity to choose the best form of dispute resolution and not have to submit to the packers. It ensures that a farmer, most often the ``little guy' in these dealings, is able to maintain his constitutional right to a jury trial. It also gives him a chance to compel disclosure of relevant information, held by the company, which is necessary for a fair decision.
During consideration of the Farm Bill, the Senate passed, by a vote of 64-31, the Feingold-Grassley amendment to give farmers a choice of venues to resolve disputes associated with agricultural contracts. I urge my colleagues to join with Senator FEINGOLD and me, along with our other cosponsors, in supporting this important legislation.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and letters of support be printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
BREAK INTRANSCRIPT
By Mr. GRASSLEY:
S. 226. A bill to direct the Inspector General of the Department of Justice to submit semi-annual reports regarding settlements relating to false claims and fraud against the Federal Government; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
S. 226
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
http://thomas.loc.gov/