PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on Agriculture.
Congressional Research Service
No official summary is available in the imported record yet.
People & committees
Rep. Scanlon, Mary Gay [D-PA-5] · D–PA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on Agriculture.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We also preserved the text version used in the PlainBill explanation below.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Oct 5, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.10506 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.10506 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.10506 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.10506 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.
PlainBill explanation
Based on the full Introduced in House · 2026-09-17 text. This explanation has not received human editorial review. This overview describes the proposal’s major provisions; it does not establish what its real-world effects would be.
The proposed Packers and Stockyards Improvements Act would add live poultry dealers to existing federal enforcement provisions and add provisions for regular livestock-data sharing with designated federal enforcement staff. The surrounding data-sharing statute is not supplied, so the complete sharing duty cannot be determined. It would authorize formal demands for records and testimony and protect workers and contractors who lawfully report suspected violations, with exceptions. It would also define unfair practices affecting livestock producers and poultry growers, including certain payment arrangements and failures to compensate producers for contract termination or processing-plant closure.
This Act may be cited as the Packers and Stockyards Improvements Act.
Sections 203, 204, and 205 of the Packers and Stockyards Act, 1921 (7 U.S.C. 193, 194, and 195), are each amended by inserting , live poultry dealer, after packer each place it appears.
(B) on a regular and continual basis, to— (i) any person employed by the Department of Agriculture who is charged with the duty of enforcing or carrying into effect any provision of the Packers and Stockyards Act, 1921 (7 U.S.C. 201 et seq.), for the purpose of monitoring violations of such Act; and (ii) any person employed by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission who is charged with the duty of enforcing or carrying into effect any provision of the Commodity Exchange Act (7 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), for the purpose of monitoring violations of such Act.
a civil investigative demand requiring such person to— (A) produce such documentary material for inspection and copying or reproduction; (B) submit such tangible things; (C) file written reports or answers to questions; (D) give oral testimony concerning documentary material or other information
No covered entity may discharge, demote, intimidate, restrain, coerce, blacklist, harass, or in any other manner retaliate, discriminate, or take adverse action against a covered individual because of any lawful act done by the covered individual
For purposes of section 202(a), the following acts shall be considered to be unfair practices:
A live poultry dealer utilizing a comparison of poultry growers to reduce any rate of compensation under the contract.
A live poultry dealer terminating a poultry growing arrangement, or a swine contractor terminating a swine production contract, without full compensation to the grower
A packer failing to fully compensate livestock producers that regularly market livestock to a packer at a processing plant arising from the closure of the processing plant
Section 2 would add live poultry dealers wherever packers appear in three existing enforcement sections. It would also repeal existing sections 411–413 and renumber sections 414–415 as 411–412. The underlying provisions are not reproduced, so the supplied text does not show their full existing requirements.
Sections 203, 204, and 205 of the Packers and Stockyards Act, 1921 (7 U.S.C. 193, 194, and 195), are each amended by inserting , live poultry dealer, after packer each place it appears.
(b) Repeals Sections 411, 412, and 413 of the Packers and Stockyards Act, 1921 (7 U.S.C. 228b–2, 228b–3, and 228b–4) are repealed. (c) Conforming amendments Sections 414 and 415 of the Packers and Stockyards Act, 1921 (7 U.S.C. 228c and 228d) are redesignated as sections 411 and 412, respectively.
Section 3 would insert recipient categories into the livestock-data sharing provision: Agriculture Department staff enforcing the Packers and Stockyards Act and Commodity Futures Trading Commission staff enforcing the Commodity Exchange Act. The inserted language specifies sharing on a regular and continual basis for monitoring violations of the respective acts. The surrounding statute is not supplied, so the amendment alone does not establish whether sharing would be mandatory or discretionary or whether access would be guaranteed.
3. Sharing of livestock data Section 251(b)(2) of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1636) is amended
(B) on a regular and continual basis, to— (i) any person employed by the Department of Agriculture who is charged with the duty of enforcing or carrying into effect any provision of the Packers and Stockyards Act, 1921 (7 U.S.C. 201 et seq.), for the purpose of monitoring violations of such Act; and (ii) any person employed by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission who is charged with the duty of enforcing or carrying into effect any provision of the Commodity Exchange Act (7 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), for the purpose of monitoring violations of such Act.
Section 4 would authorize civil investigative demands—formal written requests requiring evidence—before proceedings under section 203(a) begin. The Secretary could demand documents, physical objects, written answers or oral testimony from anyone the Secretary has reason to believe may possess information or material relevant to an unlawful practice under section 202.
Whenever the Secretary has reason to believe that any person may be in possession, custody, or control of any documentary material or tangible things, or may have any information relevant to an unlawful practice under section 202, the Secretary may, before the institution of any proceedings under section 203(a), issue in writing and cause to be served upon such person, a civil investigative demand requiring such person to— (A) produce such documentary material for inspection and copying or reproduction; (B) submit such tangible things; (C) file written reports or answers to questions; (D) give oral testimony concerning documentary material or other information; or (E) furnish any combination of such material, tangible things, answers, or testimony.
The term documentary material includes the original or any copy of any book, record, report, memorandum, paper, communication, tabulation, chart, or other document or media file.
Each demand would have to identify the alleged conduct and applicable law. Demands for documents or objects would need clear descriptions, reasonable time to respond and an identified recipient responsible for holding the material.
Each civil investigative demand shall state the nature of the conduct constituting the alleged violation which is under investigation and the provision of law applicable to such violation.
Each civil investigative demand for the production of documentary material shall— (A) describe each class of documentary material to be produced under the demand with such definiteness and certainty as to permit such material to be fairly identified; (B) prescribe a return date or dates which will provide a reasonable period of time within which the material so demanded may be assembled and made available for inspection and copying or reproduction; and (C) identify the custodian to whom such material shall be made available.
Each civil investigative demand for the submission of tangible things shall— (A) describe each class of tangible things to be submitted under the demand with such definiteness and certainty as to permit such things to be fairly identified; (B) prescribe a return date or dates which will provide a reasonable period of time within which the things so demanded may be assembled and submitted; and (C) identify the custodian to whom such things shall be submitted.
Written-question demands would have to specify the questions, response dates and recipient. Oral-testimony demands would have to identify the time, place, investigator and transcript recipient.
Each civil investigative demand for written reports or answers to questions shall— (A) propound with definiteness and certainty the reports to be produced or the questions to be answered; (B) prescribe a date or dates at which time written reports or answers to questions shall be submitted; and (C) identify the custodian to whom such reports or answers shall be submitted.
Each civil investigative demand for the giving of oral testimony shall— (A) prescribe a date, time, and place at which oral testimony shall be commenced; and (B) identify a packers and stockyards investigator who shall conduct the investigation and the custodian to whom the transcript of such investigation shall be submitted.
Demands and enforcement petitions could be formally delivered to individual people or legal entities through specified personal, business-office or registered/certified-mail methods. Service abroad would follow federal civil-procedure rules; authority over people outside U.S. courts' territorial jurisdiction would remain subject to jurisdiction and due-process limits.
upon any person who is not found within the territorial jurisdiction of any court of the United States— (i) in such manner as the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure prescribe for service in a foreign nation; and (ii) to the extent that courts of the United States have authority to assert jurisdiction over such person, consistent with due process, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia shall have the same jurisdiction to take any action respecting compliance with this section by such person.
Service of any civil investigative demand or any enforcement petition filed under this section may be made upon a person, including any natural person or any legal entity, by— (A) delivering a duly executed copy of such demand or petition to the individual or to any partner, executive officer, managing agent, or general agent of such person, or to any agent of such person authorized by appointment or by law to receive service of process on behalf of such person; (B) delivering a duly executed copy of such demand or petition to the principal office or place of business of the person to be served; or (C) depositing a duly executed copy in the United States mails, by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, duly addressed to such person at the principal office or place of business of such person.
People producing documents or physical objects would have to certify under oath that they supplied all required material within their possession, custody or control. Written questions would require separate, complete answers under oath, or sworn objections in place of answers.
The production of documentary material in response to a civil investigative demand shall be made under a sworn certificate
all of the documentary material required by the demand and in the possession, custody, or control of the person to whom the demand is directed has been produced and made available to the custodian.
The submission of tangible things in response to a civil investigative demand shall be made under a sworn certificate
all of the tangible things required by the demand and in the possession, custody, or control of the person to whom the demand is directed have been submitted to the custodian.
Each reporting requirement or question in a civil investigative demand shall be answered separately and fully in writing under oath, unless such requirement is objected to. Such an objection shall be stated in lieu of an answer, and it shall be submitted under a sworn certificate
Oral testimony would be under oath, recorded and transcribed, with attendance limited to the witness, counsel and specified officials and recording staff. It would occur in the federal judicial district where the witness lives, is found or does business, or another agreed location.
The officer before whom oral testimony is to be taken shall put the witness on oath or affirmation and shall personally, or by any individual acting under the direction of and in the presence of the officer, record the testimony of the witness. (ii) Transcription The testimony shall be taken stenographically and transcribed.
shall exclude from the place where the testimony is to be taken all other persons, except the person giving the testimony, the attorney for that person, the officer before whom the testimony is to be taken, an investigator or representative of an agency with which the Secretary in engaged in a joint investigation, and any stenographer taking such testimony.
The oral testimony of any person taken pursuant to a civil investigative demand shall be taken in the judicial district of the United States in which such person resides, is found, or transacts business, or in such other place as may be agreed upon by the packers and stockyards investigator before whom the oral testimony of such person is to be taken.
Witnesses could have an attorney and receive confidential advice. Objections or refusals to answer would be allowed on constitutional or other legal-right or privilege grounds, including protection against self-incrimination. The Secretary could seek a court order compelling an answer; testimony involving self-incrimination would be subject to the separately referenced federal statute.
Any person compelled to appear under a civil investigative demand for oral testimony pursuant to this section may be accompanied, represented, and advised by an attorney.
The attorney may advise a person described in clause (i), in confidence, either upon the request of such person or upon the initiative of the attorney, with respect to any question asked of such person.
An objection may properly be made, received, and entered upon the record when it is claimed that such person is entitled to refuse to answer the question on grounds of any constitutional or other legal right or privilege, including the privilege against self-incrimination, but such person shall not otherwise object to or refuse to answer any question
If a person described in clause (i) refuses to answer any question— (I) the Secretary may petition the district court of the United States pursuant to this section for an order compelling such person to answer such question; and (II) if the refusal is on grounds of the privilege against self-incrimination, the testimony of such person may be compelled in accordance with the provisions of section 6004 of title 18, United States Code.
Witnesses would have a reasonable opportunity to review their transcripts and record corrections with reasons. If a witness did not sign within 30 days after first receiving that opportunity, the investigator would sign and record the circumstances. Witnesses would receive ordinary federal district-court witness fees and mileage; transcript copies could carry reasonable charges, and the Secretary could limit access to inspection for good cause.
after the testimony of any witness is fully transcribed, the packers and stockyards investigator shall afford the witness (who may be accompanied by an attorney) a reasonable opportunity to examine the transcript
any changes in form or substance which the witness desires to make shall be entered and identified upon the transcript by the packers and stockyards investigator, with a statement of the reasons given by the witness for making such changes
if the transcript is not signed by the witness during the 30-day period following the date on which the witness is first afforded a reasonable opportunity to examine the transcript, the packers and stockyards investigator shall sign the transcript and state on the record the fact of the waiver, illness, absence of the witness, or the refusal to sign, together with any reasons given for the failure to sign.
The packers and stockyards investigator shall furnish a copy of the transcript (upon payment of reasonable charges for the transcript) to the witness only, except that the Secretary may for good cause limit such witness to inspection of the official transcript of his testimony.
Any witness appearing for the taking of oral testimony pursuant to a civil investigative demand shall be entitled to the same fees and mileage which are paid to witnesses in the district courts of the United States.
Documents and physical objects obtained through demands would be subject to confidentiality rules established by the Secretary. Those rules could not be intended to prevent disclosure to either chamber of Congress or an appropriate congressional committee, but could allow advance notice to owners or providers who designated material confidential.
Documentary materials and tangible things received as a result of a civil investigative demand shall be subject to requirements and procedures regarding confidentiality, in accordance with rules established by the Secretary.
No rule established by the Secretary regarding the confidentiality of materials submitted to, or otherwise obtained by, the Secretary shall, pursuant to a civil investigative demand under this section, be intended to prevent disclosure to either House of Congress or to an appropriate committee of the Congress, except that the Secretary is permitted to adopt rules allowing prior notice to any party that owns or otherwise provided the material to the Secretary and had designated such material as confidential.
The Secretary could ask a federal district court to enforce a properly served demand if someone failed to comply, or refused to surrender material that could not be satisfactorily copied. The case could be filed where that person lives, is found or does business.
Whenever any person fails to comply with any civil investigative demand duly served upon such person under this section, or whenever satisfactory copying or reproduction of material requested pursuant to the demand cannot be accomplished and such person refuses to surrender such material, the Secretary, through such officers or attorneys as the Secretary may designate, may file, in the district court of the United States for any judicial district in which such person resides, is found, or transacts business, and serve upon such person, a petition for an order of such court for the enforcement of this section.
A recipient could ask the Secretary to change or cancel a demand within 20 days after service or before its response date, whichever period is shorter. A named investigator could grant a longer period in writing after service.
Any person served in a civil investigative demand under subsection (a) may, during the period described in paragraph (2), file with the Secretary a petition for an order by the Secretary modifying or setting aside the demand.
A petition under paragraph (1) shall be made— (A) not later than 20 days after the service of any civil investigative demand upon any person under subsection (a), or at any time before the return date specified in the demand, whichever period is shorter; or (B) in such period exceeding 20 days after service or in excess of such return date as may be prescribed in writing, subsequent to service, by any packers and stockyards investigator named in the demand.
A challenge would have to identify its grounds, which could include defects in the demand or constitutional or other legal rights or privileges. The compliance clock would pause to the extent ordered by the Secretary while the challenge was pending, but unchallenged portions would still require compliance.
The time permitted for compliance with the demand in whole or in part, as determined proper and ordered by the Secretary, shall not run during the pendency of a petition under paragraph (1) by the Secretary, except that such person shall comply with any portions of the demand not sought to be modified or set aside.
A petition under paragraph (1) shall specify each ground upon which the petitioner relies in seeking relief, and may be based upon any failure of the demand to comply with the provisions of this section, or upon any constitutional or other legal right or privilege of such person.
A person who supplied material could ask the federal district court where the custodian's office is located to require the custodian to perform statutory or regulatory duties. Federal district courts would have authority to decide petitions under this section, and final orders could be appealed.
At any time during which any custodian is in custody or control of any documentary material, tangible things, reports, answers to questions, or transcripts of oral testimony given by any person in compliance with any civil investigative demand, such person may file, in the district court of the United States for the judicial district within which the office of such custodian is situated, and serve upon such custodian, a petition for an order of such court requiring the performance by such custodian of any duty imposed upon such custodian by this section or rule promulgated by the Secretary.
Whenever any petition is filed in any district court of the United States under this section, such court shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter so presented, and to enter such order or orders as may be required to carry out the provisions of this section. (2) Appeal Any final order entered as described in paragraph (1) shall be subject to appeal pursuant to section 1291 of title 28.
Section 4 would also protect employees, contractors, subcontractors and agents against retaliation for lawful reports of actual or reasonably suspected violations to specified federal, state or workplace authorities. Protection would also cover qualifying participation in investigations, proceedings or lawsuits. Federal recipients would include members and committees of Congress.
No covered entity may discharge, demote, intimidate, restrain, coerce, blacklist, harass, or in any other manner retaliate, discriminate, or take adverse action against a covered individual because of any lawful act done by the covered individual
to provide or cause to be provided to the Federal Government, an attorney general of a State, or a person with supervisory authority over the covered individual, or such other person working for the employer who has the authority to investigate, discover, or terminate misconduct, information relating to any violation of, or any act or omission the covered individual reasonably believes to be a violation of, a provision of this chapter
to cause to be filed, testify in, participate in, or otherwise assist a Federal Government investigation or a Federal Government proceeding filed or about to be filed (with any knowledge of the employer) or any cause of action relating to any violation of, or any act or omission the covered individual reasonably believes to be a violation of, a provision of this chapter.
The term covered individual means an employee, contractor, subcontractor, or agent of an employer.
The term Federal Government means— (i) a Federal regulatory or law enforcement agency; or (ii) any Member of Congress or committee of Congress.
The proposed whistleblower protection would exclude people who planned and initiated a violation or attempted violation of the Packers and Stockyards Act, a violation or attempted violation of another criminal law in conjunction with such a violation or attempt, or obstruction or attempted obstruction of an Agriculture Department investigation of a violation of that Act.
Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any covered individual if— (A) the covered individual planned and initiated a violation or attempted violation of a provision of this chapter; (B) the covered individual planned and initiated a violation or attempted violation of another criminal law in conjunction with a violation or attempted violation of a provision of this chapter; or (C) the covered individual planned and initiated an obstruction or attempted obstruction of an investigation by the Department of Agriculture of a violation of a provision of this chapter.
A retaliation complaint would have to be filed with the Secretary of Labor within 180 days after the violation. If no final decision had been issued after 180 days from filing, the claimant could bring a federal district-court action, provided the delay was not caused by the claimant's bad faith.
A covered individual who alleges discharge or other discrimination by any covered entity in violation of subsection (a) may seek relief under subsection (c) by— (A) filing a complaint with the Secretary of Labor; or (B) if the Secretary of Labor has not issued a final decision after the day that is 180 days after the date on which the complaint was filed, and such delay is not due to the bad faith of the claimant, bringing an action in the appropriate district court of the United States.
A complaint under paragraph (1)(A) shall be filed with the Secretary of Labor not later than 180 days after the date on which the violation occurs.
The Labor Department would establish complaint procedures similar to those in a referenced federal statute, and court actions would use that statute's legal burdens of proof. Named individuals and the covered entity would receive notice. The Labor Secretary or the person protected by an order could sue to enforce an order, including a preliminary order. The referenced statute is not supplied, so its procedures and burdens of proof cannot be detailed from this source set.
The Secretary of Labor shall establish rules and procedures to govern complaints filed under paragraph (1)(A) that are similar to the rules and procedures set forth in section 42121(b) of title 49, United States Code (as in effect on the date of enactment of this section).
Notification related to a complaint filed under paragraph (1)(A) shall be made to any individual named in the complaint and to the covered entity. (C) Burdens of proof An action brought under paragraph (1)(B) shall be governed by the legal burdens of proof described in section 42121(b) of title 49, United States Code.
If a person fails to comply with an order or preliminary order issued by the Secretary of Labor pursuant to the procedures established under subparagraph (A), the Secretary of Labor or the person on whose behalf the order was issued may bring a civil action to enforce the order in the district court of the United States for the judicial district in which the violation occurred.
Successful retaliation claimants would be entitled to relief restoring their position and compensating their losses, including reinstatement with preserved seniority, back pay or lost income with interest, and specified damages and legal costs. Punitive damages could reach $400,000. Existing rights under federal or state law or collective bargaining agreements would be preserved.
A covered individual prevailing in any action under subsection (b)(1) shall be entitled to all relief necessary to make the covered individual whole, including— (A) reinstatement with the same seniority status that the covered individual would have had, but for the discrimination, retaliation, or adverse action; (B) the amount of back pay or lost income, with interest; and (C) compensation for any special damages sustained as a result of the retaliation, discrimination, or adverse action, including litigation costs, expert witness fees, and reasonable attorney’s fees.
Relief in any action under subsection (b)(1) may include punitive damages in an amount not to exceed $400,000.
Nothing in this section shall be determined to diminish the rights, privileges, or remedies of any covered individual under any Federal or State law, or under any collective bargaining agreement.
Section 5 would define unfair practices to include specified harmful methods of competition by packers, swine contractors or live poultry dealers when those methods may negatively affect competitive conditions. The listed methods include collusion, coercion, deception and exclusion.
For purposes of section 202(a), the term unfair practice includes any act in which a packer, swine contractor, or live poultry dealer is engaged that— (1) is a collusive, coercive, predatory, restrictive, deceitful, or exclusionary method of competition that may negatively affect competitive conditions
An act would also qualify as unfair if it caused or was likely to cause substantial injury to one or more market participants, they could not reasonably avoid it, and the packer, swine contractor or live poultry dealer could not establish benefits to those participants or market competition that outweighed the injury or its likelihood.
(2) causes or is likely to cause substantial injury to one or more market participants, which— (A) the participant or participants cannot reasonably avoid; and (B) the packer, swine contractor, or live poultry dealer cannot justify by establishing countervailing benefits to the market participant or participants or to competition in the market that outweighs the substantial injury or likelihood of substantial injury.
Disclosure of a practice alone would not make the resulting injury reasonably avoidable. Injury would also not count as reasonably avoidable if avoiding it required unreasonable steps, such as leaving the market or making unreasonable additional investments or efforts.
an injury shall not be treated as reasonably avoidable— (1) solely because the act referred to in such subsection has been disclosed to market participants by the packer, swine contractor, or live poultry dealer engaging in such act; and (2) if to avoid such an injury, a market participant would be required to take unreasonable steps, such as exiting the market or making unreasonable additional investments or efforts.
The bill would classify two poultry-payment practices as unfair: using comparisons among growers to reduce any contractual compensation rate, and operating such comparisons in a way that produces excessive variability in a grower's compensation.
For purposes of section 202(a), the following acts shall be considered to be unfair practices: (1) A live poultry dealer utilizing a comparison of poultry growers to reduce any rate of compensation under the contract. (2) A live poultry dealer operating a comparison of poultry growers that results in excessive variability in compensation to the grower.
A packer's contract price based on other livestock or meat transactions would be an unfair practice if the price term were unreasonably variable. Examples include too few reference transactions or insufficient detail about the type or quality of the livestock or meat used as a reference.
A packer utilizing a price term in a livestock or meat contract that is based on other transactions of livestock or meat, where the price term is unreasonably variable, including owing to insufficient specificity regarding the type or quality of the livestock or meat in the other transactions on which the price term is based or to insufficient transactions on which the price is based.
Requiring a livestock producer to deal exclusively or almost exclusively with a packer would be unfair unless the producer could trade a sufficient amount of the contracted livestock through an exchange involving that packer and other packers, with reasonably competitive price formation.
A packer requiring a producer of livestock to exclusively or near exclusively transact with a packer, unless the producer has an option to trade a sufficient amount of the livestock to be procured under a contract through a livestock exchange in which the packer is a participant among other packers such that the exchange will be reasonably competitive in price discovery.
Failure to fully compensate producers for pickup delays beyond seven days after cattle were priced for purchase would be an unfair practice. The provision refers to livestock producers and livestock pickup but uses cattle pricing as its timing trigger.
A packer failing to fully compensate producers of livestock for any delay in pickup of the livestock beyond seven days from the date on which the cattle were priced for purchase.
Ending a poultry-growing arrangement or swine-production contract without fully compensating the grower for debt incurred or other investments reasonably requested or made to obtain or maintain the arrangement would be an unfair practice. The provision expressly includes renewals of the original contract.
A live poultry dealer terminating a poultry growing arrangement, or a swine contractor terminating a swine production contract, without full compensation to the grower for debt incurred or other investments reasonably requested or made in order to secure or maintain the poultry growing arrangement or swine production contract including all renewals to any original contract between the live poultry dealer or swine contractor and the grower.
A packer's failure to fully compensate livestock producers who regularly sold to it at a closing processing plant would be an unfair practice. Compensation would include at least seven years of reasonable additional costs of marketing livestock at other plants within reasonable marketing distance, and lower prices if the closure reduced competition for livestock within reasonable marketing distance of the closed plant.
A packer failing to fully compensate livestock producers that regularly market livestock to a packer at a processing plant arising from the closure of the processing plant, including for a period covering no less than seven years the reasonable additional expenses arising from marketing the livestock at other plants within reasonable marketing distance of the producer and lower prices if the closure results in reduced competition for livestock within a reasonable marketing distance of the closed plant.
The supplied official-actions snapshot, updated October 5, 2026, records introduction in the House and referral to the House Committee on Agriculture on September 17, 2026. That snapshot does not establish subsequent legislative action or enactment.
Source snapshot updated 2026-10-05T21:16:40Z. 2026-09-17: Referred to the House Committee on Agriculture. 2026-09-17: Introduced in House 2026-09-17: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2026-09-17. These findings describe provisions and who may benefit; they are not judgments of waste, corruption, or motive.
This review covers the supplied bill text. “None identified” does not rule out provisions in later versions or accompanying reports and disclosures.
Provisions outside the bill’s main subject, or policy changes attached to appropriations.
None identified in the reviewed text
No unrelated provision or policy change attached to appropriations was identified after reviewing the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion applies only to that version and does not establish the contents or attachment history of other versions or accompanying materials.
Spending directed to particular recipients or places outside ordinary competitive or formula-based allocation.
None identified in the reviewed text
No congressionally directed spending for particular recipients or places was identified after reviewing the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion applies only to that version and does not establish the absence of earmarks in other versions or accompanying materials; formal earmark status cannot be established from absent disclosures.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
None identified in the reviewed text
No materially narrow preferential carve-out, special exemption or exception warranting a targeted-benefit finding was identified after reviewing the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion applies only to that version and does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Oct 5, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI