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.
Tom Latham: “today I rise to support passage of S. 2965, a bill to extend for one year the Livestock Mandatory Price Reporting Act of…”
Editor's note · Context
Supporting the extension of the Livestock Mandatory Price Reporting Act during a House floor speech.
Share
More from Tom Latham
I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI. The rule states in pertinent part: ``An amendment…
I appreciate the gentleman's attention to this important safety issue and for highlighting the promise of this research initiative. I look forward to working with you as our bill moves through the legislative process to make certain DADSS…
I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI. The rule states in pertinent part: ``An amendment…
First of all, I will say ``thank you'' to Mr. Simpson--a great, great friend--for doing this this evening; to Mr. Nunes, who is still on the floor here; to Steve King and Dave Loebsack, who were down here. I am not going to sing--we will…





