• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Question for OCM regarding Captive Supply Reform Act

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Econ101 said:
~SH~ said:
This communist bill in it's entirety:


109th CONGRESS
1st Session


H. R. 4257

To amend the Packers and Stockyards Act, 1921, to prohibit the use of certain anti-competitive forward contracts.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

November 8, 2005


Mr. Pomeroy (for himself, Mrs. Cubin, and Ms. Herseth) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Agriculture




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


A BILL

To amend the Packers and Stockyards Act, 1921, to prohibit the use of certain anti-competitive forward contracts.


Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.


This Act may be cited as the "Captive Supply Reform Act".


SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON USE OF FORWARD CONTRACTS.


(a) In general.—Section 202 of the Packers and Stockyards Act, 1921 (7 U.S.C. 192), is amended—

(1) by striking "to:" and inserting "to—";

(2) by redesignating subsections (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), and (g) as paragraphs (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (7), and (8), respectively, and indenting appropriately;

(3) in paragraph (7) (as redesignated by paragraph (2)), by designating paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) as subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C), respectively;

(4) in paragraph (8) (as redesignated by paragraph (2)), by striking "subdivision (a), (b), (c), (d), or (e)" and inserting "paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), or (6)";

(5) in each of paragraphs (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (7), and (8) (as redesignated by paragraph (2)), by striking the first capital letter of the first word in the paragraph and inserting the same letter in the lower case;

(6) in each of paragraphs (1) through (5) (as redesignated by paragraph (2)), by striking "or" at the end; and

(7) by inserting after paragraph (5) (as redesignated by paragraph (2)) the following:


"(6) use, in effectuating any sale of livestock, a forward contract that—

"(A) does not contain a firm base price that may be equated to a fixed dollar amount on the day on which the forward contract is entered into;

"(B) is not offered for bid in an open, public manner under which—

"(i) buyers and sellers have the opportunity to participate in the bid;

"(ii) more than 1 blind bid is solicited; and

"(iii) buyers and sellers may witness bids that are made and accepted;


"(C) is based on a formula price; or

"(D) provides for the sale of livestock in a quantity in excess of—

"(i) in the case of cattle, 40 cattle;

"(ii) in the case of swine, 30 swine; and

"(iii) in the case of other types of livestock, a comparable quantity of the type of livestock determined by the Secretary.".






(b) Definitions.—Section 2(a) of the Packers and Stockyards Act, 1921 (7 U.S.C. 182(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following:


"(15) Formula price.—

"(A) In general.—The term 'formula price' means any price term that establishes a base from which a purchase price is calculated on the basis of a price that will not be determined or reported until a date after the day the forward price is established.

"(B) Exclusion.—The term 'formula price' does not include—

"(i) any price term that establishes a base from which a purchase price is calculated on the basis of a futures market price; or

"(ii) any adjustment to the base for quality, grade, or other factors relating to the value of livestock or livestock products that are readily verifiable market factors and are outside the control of the packer.



"(16) Forward contract.—The term 'forward contract' means an oral or written contract for the purchase of livestock that provides for the delivery of the livestock to a packer at a date that is more than 7 days after the date on which the contract is entered into, without regard to whether the contract is for—

"(A) a specified lot of livestock; or

"(B) a specified number of livestock over a certain period of time.".


I don't know how the smiley faces became attached to this but the only ones smiling about this bill is the arrogant Livestock Marketing Police.



~SH~

And the ones supporting market manipulation are frowning.

Wrong again Econ101. The winners will be those who support progress; the vast majority of livestock producers in the U.S. This bill is dead meat. This is not from a "behind closed door meeting" as you will accuse but just common sense, something you lack completely. For someone who has repeatedly demonstrated a total lack of knowledge of the beef industry you sure never run out of solutions for perceived problems. Conspiracy and manipulation theories are the product of ignorance. You are living proof of that.
 
Progress for beef processors, not producers.

The ones controlling the Ag. committee right now come from poultry and pork producing states. Slavery has always been a part of the south and thes guys are continuing that tradition. I am from Texas and don't happen to believe in that. Saxby is cow towing to the GA poultry industry represented by processors, not poultry farmers.

There is currently a move to the "chickenization" of the beef industry and you are a proponent of it. I am not.
 
Econ101 said:
Progress for beef processors, not producers.

The ones controlling the Ag. committee right now come from poultry and pork producing states. Slavery has always been a part of the south and thes guys are continuing that tradition. I am from Texas and don't happen to believe in that. Saxby is cow towing to the GA poultry industry represented by processors, not poultry farmers.

There is currently a move to the "chickenization" of the beef industry and you are a proponent of it. I am not.

Your ignorance just won't allow you to look beyond your phony and endless stream of manipulaiton theories. That is a true sign of ignorance. You are the poster boy for that dance movement.
 
agman said:
Econ101 said:
Progress for beef processors, not producers.

The ones controlling the Ag. committee right now come from poultry and pork producing states. Slavery has always been a part of the south and thes guys are continuing that tradition. I am from Texas and don't happen to believe in that. Saxby is cow towing to the GA poultry industry represented by processors, not poultry farmers.

There is currently a move to the "chickenization" of the beef industry and you are a proponent of it. I am not.

Your ignorance just won't allow you to look beyond your phony and endless stream of manipulaiton theories. That is a true sign of ignorance. You are the poster boy for that dance movement.

And your ignorance will not allow you to see reality.
 

Latest posts

Top