Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
Congressional Research Service
Official summary
Version 53 · Passed House · Dec 8, 2021
Cattle Contract Library Act of 2021
This bill directs the Department of Agriculture (USDA) to establish and maintain a library or catalog of each type of contract offered by packers to producers for the purchase of all or part of the production of fed cattle (including cattle that are purchased or committed for delivery), including any schedules of premiums or discounts associated with the contract.
USDA must make the library or catalog publicly available in a user-friendly format and provide weekly or monthly reports as applicable.
The bill makes it unlawful for any packer to willfully fail or refuse to provide USDA with accurate contractual information or to comply with any other requirements under the bill.
The Agricultural Marketing Service must provide competitive grants to state agricultural experiment stations, universities, national laboratories, and other entities for producer outreach and education efforts on best uses of cattle market information, including information made available through the livestock mandatory reporting program and the library or catalog.
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 411 - 13 (Roll no. 409).(text: CR H7487-7488)
Considered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H7530-7531)
At the conclusion of debate, the Yeas and Nays were demanded and ordered. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 8, rule XX, the Chair announced that further proceedings on the motion would be postponed.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 5609.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H7487-7490)
Mr. Scott, David moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 145.
Reported by the Committee on Agriculture. H. Rept. 117-203.
Reported by the Committee on Agriculture. H. Rept. 117-203.
Ordered to be Reported by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the House Committee on Agriculture.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Bill text & related measures
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: May 28, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Explore the bill from different angles
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.
Neutral evidence review
Objective
Analyze H.R.5609 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.
View full prompt & sources
Fairness and public impact
Progressive lens
Examine H.R.5609 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.
View full prompt & sources
Institutions and government scope
Conservative lens
Examine H.R.5609 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.
View full prompt & sources
Individual rights and government power
Liberty lens
Examine H.R.5609 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.