Price Disclosure At Federal
Level Said To Be Under Steam

WASHINGTON —(AP)— A patchwork of state legislation requiring packers to reveal the prices they pay, coupled with a directive from Congress, has brought together the rarest of allies — the processing industry and livestock producers.

Both sides are hard at work on a compromise to the thorny issue known as mandatory price reporting. Packers and producers have met about 15 times since March and work has moved so well that the coalition hopes to deliver draft language for federal legislation to Capitol Hill in the next few weeks.

``I believe both sides have learned from these discussions and gained a better understanding of what we are seeking and how to best achieve those goals without harming producers,'' George Swan, president of the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, told a House Agriculture subcommittee last week.

``They are breaking down the barriers of suspicion and mistrust,'' said Rep. Richard W. Pombo, R-Calif. ``In the end, just by putting this issue behind them, each side will be better off.''

Mandatory price reporting long has been a hot-button issue. Many producers have accused big companies of pushing them out by keeping prices secret.

The issue became even more urgent for farmers as prices paid to producers spiraled downward over the last year. After hog prices dropped to their lowest levels in 40 years in December, the National Pork Producers Council, which had pushed with little success for a voluntary reporting system, endorsed mandatory price reporting.

``We believe it is time to demand real and meaningful market transparency in the livestock marketplace,'' said John McNutt, the council's president.

As the low livestock prices sent an already struggling agricultural economy into a tailspin, both Republican and Democratic lawmakers began offering proposals for mandatory price reporting. The Clinton administration, which has supported the issue but never put forth legislation, offered its proposal last month.

Lawmakers on both sides predict the issue finally has enough support to pass Congress.

House Agriculture Chairman Larry Combest, R-Texas, and Rep. Larry Stenholm, D-Texas, the committee's ranking member, got the negotiating process started last month when they called on all sides to come together.

``The logic was simple. Nobody is more qualified to know better what will work than the affected parties themselves,'' Combest said.

Still, perhaps most daunting for the packers was the prospect of various state laws requiring mandatory price reporting.

South Dakota passed a price reporting law, effective July 1. Similar efforts are underway in Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska and Kansas. Advocates predict the trend will continue.

``The industry has moved quickly on this venture in an effort to head off some very misguided legislation in a number of state legislatures,'' said Ken Bull, vice president of cattle procurement for Wichita, Kan.-based Excel Corp., a subsidiary of food giant Cargill Inc. ``Many of these state proposals will cause real harm to the industry, and to producers in particular.''

South Dakota's proposal, for instance, makes it illegal for processors to contract with farmers, Bull said, adding that many creditors require contracts for borrowers to qualify for loans.

Don Willms, vice president for cattle procurement at Greeley, Colo.-based Monfort, Inc., a subsidiary of ConAgra, urged Congress last week to embrace ``on a national basis'' whatever proposal is put forth.

``To avoid the commercially disruptive situations, cattle producers, and I believe pork producers, jointly recommend that this legislation pre-empt state reporting requirements,'' Willms said.