PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Executive Comment Requested from USDA, Justice.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Apr 13, 2000
Agriculture Competition Enhancement Act of 2000 - Makes it unlawful for a business purchaser of livestock, poultry, or a basic agricultural commodity for (wholesale) resale, either unprocessed or processed, to acquire the voting assets of any person if: (1) the total amount of such assets or annual sales of each person exceeds specified limits; and (2) such acquisition would reduce competition so as have a negative effect on prices paid to producers.(Sec. 3) Requires such a purchaser filing a premerger notice under the Clayton Act to also file with the Secretary of Agriculture. Provides for: (1) public comment; and (2) review by the Secretary respecting such action's anticompetitive effects.(Sec. 4) Subjects such actions to specified enforcement provisions of the Clayton Act.(Sec. 5) Directs the Attorney General to establish in the Department of Justice an Office of Special Counsel for Agriculture to handle agricultural antitrust issues.(Sec. 6) Directs the Comptroller General to conduct a study respecting whether: (1) the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyard Administration needs additional resources to monitor and investigate the competitive implications of meat packing industry practices; and (2) disparities exist in the Administration's authority respecting the poultry, meat, and pork industries.
People & committees
Rep. Thune, John [R-SD-At Large] · R–SD
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Executive Comment Requested from USDA, Justice.
Executive Comment Requested from USDA.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Department Operations, Oversight, Nutrition and Forestry.
Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Agriculture, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Agriculture, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Agriculture, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 20, 2025. 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.4339 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.4339 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.4339 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.4339 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.