SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
The Organization for Competitive Markets (OCM) Opposes Senate Bill S.3229 Known as the Compromise Cattle Market Bill
The Organization for Competitive Markets (OCM) opposes Senate Bill S.3229 known as the Compromise Cattle Market Bill.
OCM President, Vaughn Meyer said, "The mission of OCM is to work for transparent, fair and truly competitive agricultural and food markets and S.3229 is merely an extension of the current lack of market transparency which allows packer domination in the market place".
WASHINGTON
The Organization for Competitive Markets (OCM) opposes Senate Bill S.3229 known as the Compromise Cattle Market Bill.
OCM President, Vaughn Meyer said, "The mission of OCM is to work for transparent, fair and truly competitive agricultural and food markets and S.3229 is merely an extension of the current lack of market transparency which allows packer domination in the market place".
S.3229 introduced by Senators Chuck Grassley (R- Iowa), Jon Tester (D-Mont.), Deb Fischer (R- Neb.), and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) is a compromise attempt to combine S.949, the Spot Market Protection Bill, and S. 543, the Cattle Market Transparency Act of 2021. Under this union, the bill crafters have neglected the dire need for the immediate market transparency measures necessary for independent cattle producer and feeder survival.
Since the 2015 cattle market crash, precipitated by Congressional Country of Origin Labeling rejection, cattle producers have sought Congressional assistance in regaining their lost markets. One of the two key steps to rebuilding the cattle industry is establishing greater cash market transparency.
S.3229 fails to include immediate mandatory negotiated cash market levels that were originally inclusive in S. 949. Without immediate established cash purchase minimums, producers may have to endure two more years before any cash market reconstruction can occur, and then it will be subject to a lengthy USDA approval process. Farmers and Ranchers desperately need immediate intervention to break the stranglehold of corporate consolidation in our food and agricultural economy.
In addition to no present cash market discovery for producers, S3229 precipitates regional scapegoats for differing cash market purchasing requirements whereby regions of higher transparency levels may be reduced by regions with lower 18-month cash market averages. This regionalized approach of S.3229 exempts more than half of the United States translating into a "get home free card " for many big four packing plants. Differing industry regional requirements will only serve to create producer animosity, create transportation burdens and dictate processing facility locations.
OCM understands and appreciates the need for industry consensus to fix the ongoing monopsony market power which is depriving thousands of family producers and feeders of their livelihoods. However, any consensus must have immediate and lasting solutions for the economic equality of all participants.
OCM, in keeping with our mission for transparent, fair, and truly competitive agricultural and food markets, supports only compromises with:
- Immediate nationally mandated cash market discovery to restore market competition, ensure market access and establish a true market basis for all marketing agreements.
- Provide equal terms and treatment toward all individuals, localities, and regions in accordance with the 1921 Packers and Stockyards Act section 202 (7 U.S.C. 192) (b).
- Provide equal access to all purchase agreements /contracts for all participants as set forth under the Packers and Stockyards Act.
Organization for Competitive Markets (OCM) is a national, non-profit public policy research and advocacy organization headquartered in Lincoln, Nebraska.
LATEST NEWS
Senators Decry Biden's Decision to Fully Fund Egypt Despite Ongoing Rights Abuses
"Over the last year, for every single political prisoner Egypt has released, it has jailed two more," lamented U.S. Sen. Chris Murphy.
Sep 12, 2024
Several Democratic U.S. senators on Thursday denounced the Biden administration's decision to send $1.3 billion in military aid to Egypt despite enduring human rights abuses by the Middle Eastern country's authoritarian regime.
U.S. State Antony Blinken this week waived human rights conditions attached to $225 million of the aid package, citing Egypt's strategic importance and the country's role in attempts to broker a cease-fire agreement that would halt the assault on Gaza by Israel, which is on trial for genocide at the International Court of Justice.
"It's no secret that Egypt remains a deeply repressive autocratic state."
"This decision waives requirements on an additional $225 million of military aid to Egypt that is tied to broader improvements on democracy and human rights," Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Ct.) said in a statement on Thursday.
"It's no secret that Egypt remains a deeply repressive autocratic state, and I see no good reason to ignore that fact by waiving these requirements," the senator added. "We have previously withheld this portion of Egypt's military aid package, while still maintaining our strategic relationship, and we should continue to do so."
On Wednesday, Murphy and Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) issued a joint statement decrying Biden's decision to fully fund Egypt, focusing on a separate $95 million share of aid released by the administration.
"The law is clear: Egypt is required to make 'clear and consistent progress' in releasing political prisoners in order to receive $95 million—a small portion—of its $1.3 billion military aid package this year," the senators wrote. "The Egyptian government has failed that test."
"Over the last year, for every single political prisoner Egypt has released, it has jailed two more," Murphy and Coons noted. "That's not clear and consistent progress—it's one step forward and two steps back. And among the thousands and thousands of political prisoners the government has continued to refuse to release are two U.S. legal permanent residents, Hosam Khalaf and Salah Soltan."
Last week, Murphy and Coons were among the nine Democratic senators and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) who urged Blinken to "enforce the conditions set forth by Congress on holding Egypt accountable for progress on human rights" by withholding aid "until Egypt's human rights record improves."
According to the most recent State Department annual country report, "there were no significant changes in the human rights situation in Egypt" between 2022-23.
The report cited violations including:
Credible reports of arbitrary or unlawful killings, including extrajudicial killings; enforced disappearance; torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment by the government; harsh and life-threatening prison conditions; arbitrary arrest and detention; serious problems with the independence of the judiciary; political prisoners or detainees; transnational repression against individuals in another country; arbitrary or unlawful interference with privacy; punishment of family members for alleged offenses by a relative.
"Egypt has failed to make consistent progress, yet the State Department has decided to release additional military aid," Sen. Peter Welch (D-Vt.) said on Thursday. "The administration should use the leverage Congress provided to defend the fundamental rights of Egyptian political prisoners and dissidents. That's what the Egyptian people, and people everywhere, rightly expect of the United States."
Keep ReadingShow Less
In 'Win for Reproductive Freedom,' North Dakota Judge Strikes Down Abortion Ban
"I look forward to a new future in North Dakota and hope our lawmakers will finally give up on their crusade to force pregnancy on people against their will," said one advocate.
Sep 12, 2024
Two days after Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump claimed that "every Democrat, every Republican, liberal, conservative" wanted the federal right to abortion care to be overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court, a North Dakota judge became the latest on Thursday to strike down a state-level abortion ban, saying it violated residents' constitutional rights.
"The North Dakota Constitution guarantees each individual, including women, the fundamental right to make medical judgments affecting his or her bodily integrity, health, and autonomy, in consultation with a chosen healthcare provider free from government interference," wrote Judge Bruce Romanick, a District Court judge. "This section necessarily and more specifically protects a woman's right to procreative autonomy—including to seek and obtain a previability abortion."
The near-total ban on abortion care will be officially blocked in the coming days, in a move that the Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR) said could ultimately help restore access for people across the Midwest, as abortion care is currently banned in South Dakota and heavily restricted in nearby states including Nebraska and Iowa.
Meetra Mehdizadeh, a staff attorney at CRR, which filed a lawsuit against North Dakota's ban in 2023, said the ruling "is a win for reproductive freedom, and means it is now much safer to be pregnant in North Dakota," but warned that Republican lawmakers who passed the law have already done damage to pregnant people in the state that will take time to reverse.
"The damage that North Dakota's extreme abortion bans have done cannot be repaired overnight," said Mehdizadeh. "There are no abortion clinics left in North Dakota. That means most people seeking an abortion still won't be able to get one, even though it is legal. Clinics are medical facilities that need to acquire doctors, staff, equipment—they can take years to open, like most healthcare centers. The destructive impacts of abortion bans are felt long after they are struck down."
CRR argued in the case that the ban was too vague for medical providers to determine when an exception would be allowed for a pregnant patient whose life or health was at risk.
"This left physicians who provided abortions with the threat of having to defend their decision in court if someone were to question the provider's judgment," said the group. "Violating the ban was considered a class C felony, punishable by a maximum of five years of imprisonment, a fine of $10,000, or both."
Among the plaintiffs represented by CRR was Red River Women's Clinic, which was North Dakota's sole abortion care provider until a prior ban forced it to relocate from Fargo to Moorhead, Minnesota, where abortion has remained legal following the U.S. Supreme Court's overturning of Roe v. Wade.
"Today's decision gives me hope. I feel like the court heard us when we raised our voices against a law that not only ran counter to our state constitution, but was too vague for physicians to interpret and which prevented them from providing the high quality care that our communities are entitled to," said Tammi Kromenaker, director of the clinic. "Abortion is lifesaving healthcare; it should not be a crime. I look forward to a new future in North Dakota and hope our lawmakers will finally give up on their crusade to force pregnancy on people against their will."
Since Roe was overturned in 2022, numerous women have shared stories of being denied abortion care after suffering complications—including some that were life-threatening.
Judges in states including Wyoming, Utah, and Montana have blocked abortion bans in recent years, and voters have rejected anti-abortion ballot measures and approved ones that support the right to abortion in states including Kentucky, Kansas, Ohio, and Michigan.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Democrats Introduce Federal Bill to Make Climate Polluters Pay
"We all agree on a simple but powerful principle—that polluters should pay to clean up the mess that they have caused, and those that have polluted the most should pay the most," Sen. Chris Van Hollen said.
Sep 12, 2024
United States Sen. Chris Van Hollen and Rep. Jerry Nadler on Thursday announced the introduction of legislation that would require Big Oil firms to pay into a damages fund used to address the climate crisis.
The Polluters Pay Climate Fund Act, which Van Hollen first proposed in 2021, would levy charges on the largest companies that extract and refine fossil fuels in the U.S., based on a Superfund model. It would create a $1 trillion fund to "address harm and damages caused," with a significant proportion of the money spent on environmental justice in affected communities, Van Hollen said.
"We all agree on a simple but powerful principle—that polluters should pay to clean up the mess that they have caused, and those that have polluted the most should pay the most," Van Hollen said at a press conference.
Jamie Henn, director of Fossil Free Media, indicated that the proposal was groundbreaking.
"We're thrilled to be supporting the first ever federal bill that would make polluters pay for climate damages!" Henn wrote on social media.
BIG NEWS: We're thrilled to be supporting the *first ever* federal bill that would #MakePollutersPay for climate damages!!
The Polluters Pay Climate Fund act would raise *$1 TRILLION* from Big Oil to help families & communities deal with climate impacts. https://t.co/wX6lMOTexh
— Jamie Henn (@jamieclimate) September 12, 2024
The new bill targets only the "heaviest hitters," as Van Hollen put it: companies responsible for at least 1 billion tons of carbon dioxide emissions in the period between 2000 and 2022. The levies they face would be directly proportional to the amount of oil, gas, and coal extracted or refined, as determined by the U.S. Treasury and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
In addition to Van Hollen and Nadler (D-N.Y.), the bicameral legislation was also introduced by Rep. Judy Chu (D-Calif.). It has five co-sponsors in the Senate, including Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), and more than a dozen co-sponsors in the House of Representatives, including Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.).
Many state legislatures have considered "polluters pay" climate bills in recent years, and Vermont passed one in May. Van Hollen said a federal bill "would be a big, big step forward."
The bill has the backing of many dozens of environmental organizations around the country, several of which had representatives at Thursday's press conference.
"The fossil fuel industry has known about climate change for decades," Sara Chieffo, a vice president at the League of Conservation Voters, said at the event. "It's time they face the consequences of their deception and are held responsible for their actions that are destroying both lives and a livable, safe climate."
Phil Radford, Sierra Club's chief strategy officer, added that "for way too long, these companies have poisoned communities, spilled oil, polluted our air, caused all sorts of health problems, and gotten away with it."
"Today is an incredible moment where we are saying: No more," he said.
Advocates indicated that at least 40% of the funds would go toward environmental justice.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular