[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 132 (Wednesday, November 17, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H9869-H9870]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
AMENDING LIVESTOCK MANDATORY PRICE REPORTING ACT OF 1999
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
Senate bill (S. 2965) to amend the Livestock Mandatory Price Reporting
Act of 1999 to modify the termination date for mandatory price
reporting.
The Clerk read as follows:
S. 2965
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. EXTENSION.
Section 942 of the Livestock Mandatory Price Reporting Act
of 1999 (7 U.S.C. 1635 note; Public Law 106-78) is amended by
striking ``terminate'' and all that follows and inserting
``terminate on September 30, 2005.''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) and the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Ross)
each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation, which extends an
important program until September 30, 2005.
As many of my colleagues know, authorization for the U.S. Department
of Agriculture's Mandatory Price Reporting Program, which was passed in
the 1999 agriculture appropriation, expired on October 23. This program
requires USDA to operate a mandatory price reporting system for beef,
pork and lamb, which provides useful information for everyone engaged
in the buying and selling of these products.
In the absence of authority to enforce mandatory reporting, the USDA
has contacted the companies to encourage them to continue reporting
data during the gap in program authorization. It is my understanding
that everyone has been cooperating. This is because they recognize the
important role this data plays in price discovery and in the operation
of marketing agreements.
There is also a clear agreement that the current program should be
extended for an additional year to provide livestock producers, the
packer community and other interested parties additional time to
identify and agree upon these technical improvements to the law.
[[Page H9870]]
The administration has recently written to the leadership of the
House and Senate in support of this simple 1-year extension. In order
to extend mandatory price reporting in a timely manner, we need to act
today.
Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of this measure.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1845
Mr. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise today in support of S. 2965, a bill to amend the Livestock
Mandatory Price Reporting Act of 1999 in order to modify the
termination date for mandatory price reporting.
The current authority for the USDA Livestock Mandatory Price
Reporting expired on October 23 of this year. It is important to the
U.S. livestock markets that we maintain a dependable flow of
information to producers to help them price their products in the
marketplace. The bill before us today provides for a simple 1-year
reauthorization of the existing program, and I am not aware of any
serious opposition to this bill.
I do regret that we have not taken the time to consider a more
careful revision of the statute prior to this point. We should have
taken up this issue much earlier during the 108th Congress and spent
the time to consider corrections to the deficiencies various groups
have noted in the program as it currently exists. But since that has
not been done, this 1-year extension seems like the best alternative
available to maintain a stable flow of information to our producers.
It is my hope that, during this 1-year extension, the Committee on
Agriculture of this House will hold hearings on this topic and consider
ways it might improve the USDA price reporting system. In the meantime,
however, a simple extension seems to be the best way to serve the
market information needs for our farmers and ranchers.
I encourage all Members to support passage of this Senate bill.
Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to support passage of S. 2965,
a bill to extend for one year the Livestock Mandatory Price Reporting
Act of 1999. As the author of the original legislation, I am pleased to
see that this important program will continue for one additional year.
It is my hope that during that time the program will be improved and,
if it is proven cost effective, made permanent.
Four major packers slaughter 80 percent of fed cattle and process
about 85 percent of boxed beef. According to producer organizations,
because of the high level of concentration, it is very important to
maintain a level playing field for all producers.
Mandatory price reporting addresses non-contract livestock producers
concerns that the increasing use of contracts prevents complete
transparency in livestock prices that, in the past, would've been made
public at auction. Additionally, independent livestock producers fear
that the increasing use of contracts means that there is less of a
market for their product, and the price they will receive will remain
low through possible packer collusion. Mandatory price reporting
provides market transparency, thus ensuring that our producers get the
best prices for their livestock.
Mr. Speaker, I am very supportive of this one-year extension. It will
give Congress additional time to determine the efficacy of the program,
whether the cost of the program outweighs the benefit, and verify price
data problems that arose with USDA's implementation of the program have
since been fixed.
Mr. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to adopt this
important legislation to extend this program for a year.
Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Renzi). The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) that the House
suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill, S. 2965.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor
thereof) the rules were suspended and the Senate bill was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________