The Meat Institute, an advocacy group for meat processors, submitted comments to USDA this week regarding the proposed Fair and Competitive Livestock and Poultry Markets rule. The organization expressed concerns that the Agricultural Marketing Service is attempting to bypass Congress and courts by reversing a long-standing legal requirement. Under current law, plaintiffs must prove that competition is harmed in order to win lawsuits under the Packers and Stockyards Act. The new rule would weaken this standard and lower the bar for lawsuits.

Mark Dopp, the Meat Institute’s COO and General Counsel, argued that these changes cannot be made through regulations.

“Changing the harm to competition standard requires Congressional action and that fact is highlighted by the Supreme Court’s decision in West Virginia v. EPA,” Dopp said. “In addition, the proposal includes standards so vague that, if adopted, it would be impossible for a regulated entity to know how to comply.”

Additionally, Dopp raised concerns that the USDA failed to account for the potential litigation costs businesses would face if the rule became final. According to Dopp, the inefficiencies caused by the rule would hurt domestic producers and harm exports, ultimately leading to higher prices for consumers.

Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack defended the proposed rule when it was announced in June, stating that it aimed to promote fairness and competition in the livestock market. The USDA extended the comment deadline for the rule to Sept. 11 to allow further input.

House approves bill to increase oversight of foreign land purchases

On Wednesday, the House of Representatives passed the Protecting American Agriculture from Foreign Adversaries Act, aimed at increasing scrutiny of farmland purchases by investors from China, Russia, Iran and North Korea. The bill, introduced by Rep. Dan Newhouse (R-Wash.), passed with a vote of 269-149, garnering support from 55 Democrats and all but one Republican.

The legislation would add the Secretary of Agriculture to the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, allowing for greater oversight of agricultural land transactions involving foreign entities from the targeted countries. The bill also empowers the Secretary of Agriculture to refer land purchases, biotechnology and related agricultural investments from these nations to CFIUS for review.

A recent Congressional Research Service report found that 22 states enacted laws regulating foreign ownership of U.S. land between January 2023 and July 2024. Despite this broad support at the state level and this week’s bipartisan vote, the White House opposes Newhouse’s bill. The administration argues that its approach would complicate CFIUS processes and that the Secretary of Agriculture is already involved in CFIUS on a case-by-case basis under existing law.

Congressional ag leaders pushing for lame-duck farm bill

In a three-page memorandum to Democratic members of the House Agriculture Committee this week, Ranking Member David Scott (D-Ga.) laid out his vision for a new farm bill. Pointing out that the Sept. 30 expiration of the current one-year extension is rapidly approaching, Scott expressed reservations about delaying a full reauthorization by another year.

“We all know that Congress needs pressure to act,” Scott wrote. “That is why Chairman Thompson, Chair Stabenow, Ranking Member Boozman, and I agree we are better off without another extension at this point. The farm groups are also asking Congress to continue to work on passing a full farm bill this year and are not supporting any extension at this time.”

Scott told his colleagues that he and House Agriculture Committee Chairman Glenn “GT” Thompson’s (R-Penn.) agree that a farm bill extension should not be included in a short-term government funding bill, which has to pass before the end of this month. He pointed out that the farm bill is largely capable of coasting until January without reauthorization before any true impacts are felt in farm country. 

“If the House and Senate Agriculture Committees are able to come to a bipartisan, bicameral agreement, the hope would be that we could include the farm bill in must-pass legislation during the lame-duck session of this Congress,” Scott said.