[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 109 (Tuesday, September 6, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Page S9648]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself and Mr. Harkin):
  S. 1613. A bill to amend the Livestock Mandatory Reporting Act of 
1999 to extend the termination date for mandatory price reporting; to 
the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by my 
colleague Senator Harkin to introduce legislation today that would 
extend the termination date for mandatory price reporting.
  Due in large part to concerned Iowa livestock producers, Congress 
passed the Livestock Mandatory Reporting Act, LMPR, in 1999 to help 
improve market transparency.
  Since Mandatory Price Reporting was implemented by USDA in 2001, I 
have heard from producers across Iowa who question the integrity and 
accountability of the reported prices under Mandatory Price Reporting 
under this law.
  While there is a lack of ``believability'' regarding the information 
generated by Mandatory Price Reporting, nearly all producers across 
Iowa feel strongly that the information would be valuable if the 
program had more credibility and improved transparency.
  Thanks to producer comments and dissatisfaction with the current 
program, Senator Harkin and I offered to initiate a Government 
Accountability Office, GAO, examination of the Mandatory Price 
Reporting program.
  I then conditioned my support of any multi-year extension or revision 
of Mandatory Price Reporting on the GAO study results.
  Unfortunately, there is growing pressure from packers and ``packer 
lackeys'' to act before the GAO report is completed.
  Under the auspice of ``consensus'' a number of groups serving packer 
interests are pushing agendas contrary to the interests of Iowa's pork 
producers and cattlemen.
  The Iowa livestock community believes any congressional action before 
receipt and review of the GAO report would be premature and ill-
advised.
  The goal of re-authorization should be to improve the existing 
legislation to the best of our ability based upon the best available 
information and analysis.
  If the non-partisan GAO is not allowed to complete its work before 
the law is re-authorized, Congress will be neglecting the opportunity 
to review and reflect upon an exhaustive study.
  Let me be clear, livestock producers in Iowa do not think it is 
prudent to move forward without substantive review and potential 
improvement of the current program. Only those entities that fear 
transparency should be fighting for a 5 year extension with no 
consideration for the GAO's pending conclusions.
  The House Agriculture Committee passed out a five year extension and 
I hope they will take into consideration the remarks made by me today. 
I look forward to protecting the interests of family farmers and 
believe this another way of providing that protection.
                                 ______