USDA's proposed rules on livestock competition are in jeopardy and will almost certainly have an extension to the public comment period following a hearing Tuesday by the House Agriculture Subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy and Poultry.

The hearing was supposed to review livestock programs in advance of the 2012 farm bill, but the hearing became a searing bi-partisan criticism of the livestock rules proposed last month by the Grain Inspection Packers and Stockyards Administration. I'm watching this through the internet feed and all I can think is "Talk about breaking out a can of Whoop *&%."

Subcommittee Chairman David Scott, D-Ga., told USDA officials that the GIPSA rule violates the farm bill's intent. Closing the hearing, Scott said USDA officials had "very, very seriously overstepped their boundaries" and that was especially true, Scott said, given that some of the provisions in the proposed rule "were soundly rejected" by the House Agriculture Committee, the House, the Senate and conference committee during the 2008 farm bill debate.

"And for you and the department to arbitrarily go against the wishes and the intent of Congress is a serious --- It is what Shakespeare said when he referred to, 'And to Brutus, yours was the meanest cut of all' --- that's what this has done. That's why you have heard the passion, the disappointment that was registered by both sides of the aisle against this proposed rule."

Scott said the least USDA could do is extend the comment period for the proposed rule another 60 days to 120 days "so we that know there is some discussion within the industry."

While GOP criticism of USDA has been a growing theme at hearings, much of the sharpest criticism came from Democrats. Rep. Jim Costa, D-Calif., said the proposed rule "becomes a lawyer's field day to sue" and questioned why USDA would try to change the "harm to competition" standard that has been upheld in eight federal appellate courts over the decades. Rep. Jim Minnick, D-Idaho, called the proposed rule "silly" on its face. Costa, Minnick and Rep. Mike Conaway, R-Texas., all asked about how USDA would interpret the ban on packer-to-packer sales, particularly because there are some small packers who own feedlot of hog operations several states away from their packing plants. Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., highlighted the complaints from packers and processors about the rules and demanded to know when USDA would make a decision on an extension of the comment period.

Undersecretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs Edward Avalos found himself trying to stick to the script by stressing, repeatedly, that the livestock rule "is a proposed rule" and that USDA wants to hear from the industry. Avalos said USDA would make a decision on the extension soon. He also largely deferred to GIPSA Administrator Dudley Butler. Avalos indicated at one point that he personally has not met specifically with any packers or critics of the proposed rule.

House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson, D-Minn., said he had asked Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack last week to consider an extension of the comment period. Peterson said producers had expressed concern to him that some of their branded premium programs could be in jeopardy because of the impact of the rule.

"I don't know exactly what you are trying to get at, if you're trying to make sure the big producers and the small producers are producing the same quality, get the same price, if that's what you are trying to do, or if you are trying to eliminate branded products."

Responding to Peterson, Avalos said, "We're not trying to eliminate value-added branded products. The proposed rule does not impact value-added branded products. The proposed rule does not prevent the use of marketing agreements, it does not prevent the payment of premiums, it doesn't require minimum purchases on the spot market, what the rule does do, it does create transparency, oppose discrimination or retaliation when there is no reason for disparity in contract terms or contract conditions, prices paid or the treatment of the producer. I also want to emphasize the proposed rule doesn't protect poor performers, producers who aren't satisfying their contract the way they are supposed to."

Peterson replied, "Well, what' I have heard from folks is you haven't convinced a lot of people of that fact. I think you have got some work to do."

The proposed rules can be found at http://archive.gipsa.usda.gov/…

Take a look at our articles on the views of two attorneys on the proposed rule on our ag policy pages.

I can be found on Twitter at ChrisClaytonDTN.