DOCSLIB.ORG

1 of 2 DOCUMENTS Commodity Futures Trading Commission FUTURES TRADING ACT of 1982 TITLE: FUTURES TRADING ACT of 1982 (PART 1) DO

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
1 of 2 DOCUMENTS Commodity Futures Trading Commission FUTURES TRADING ACT of 1982 TITLE: FUTURES TRADING ACT of 1982 (PART 1) DO Page 1 1 of 2 DOCUMENTS Commodity Futures Trading Commission FUTURES TRADING ACT OF 1982 TITLE: FUTURES TRADING ACT OF 1982 (PART 1) DOCUMENT TYPE: HOUSE REPORT DOCUMENT NUMBER: 97-565 (PART 1) DATE: MAY 17, 1982 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY: FUTURES TRADING ACT OF 1982 97TH CONGRESS 2D Session HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES REPT. 97-565 Part 1 FUTURES TRADING ACT OF 1982 MAY 17, 1982. -- Ordered to be printed Mr. DE LA GARZA, from the Committee on Agriculture, submitted the following REPORT together with ADDITIONAL VIEWS AND SEPARATE VIEWS [To accompany H.R. 5447] [Including Congressional Budget Office cost estimate] The Committee on Agriculture, to whom was referred the bill (H.R. 5447), to extend the Commodity Exchange Act, and for other purposes, having considered the same, report favorably thereon with an amendment and recommend that the bill as amended do pass. See original document-page 1 Page 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Committee Amendment 4 Summary of H.R. 5447 25 Purpose and Need for the Legislation 36 I. Extension of Funding Authorization 36 II. CFTC/SEC Jurisdictional Accord 38 III. National Futures Association/User Fees 41 IV. Expanded Role for the States 44 V. Interagency Coordination 45 VI. Agricultural Options 47 VII. Regulatory Powers and Enforcement 47 (a) Extension of Registration Requirements 48 (b) Streamlining Registration Procedures 50 (c) Framework for Delegation of the Registration Function 52 (d) Enforcement 52 VIII. Remedies for Violations of the Act 54 (a) General 54 (b) Reparations 55 (c) Arbitration 56 (d) Private Rights of Action 56 IX. Commission Emergency Powers 57 1. Potatoes, November 1976 58 2. Coffee, December 1977 58 3. Wheat, March 1979 59 4. Soviet Grain Embargo 59 X. Special Studies 60 XI. Silver Market 1979-80 61 A. Background 61 B. Agriculture Committee's Review of Silver Episode 65 C. Actions to Prevent Future Market Disruptions 68 D. Conclusion 70 XII. 1979 March Wheat 71 Background 73 Section-by-Section Analysis 79 Sec. 1. Short Title 79 Title I -- Jurisdiction 80 Sec. 101. Options; Futures Contracts 80 Sec. 102. Options on Foreign Currencies 82 Sec. 103. Commodity Pools 82 Sec. 104. Sharing Information with Contract Markets and Other Self-Regulatory Organizations 83 Title II -- Miscellaneous Amendments to the Commodity Exchange Act 83 Definitions 83 Sec. 201. Technical Amendment 83 Sec. 202. Legislative Findings 84 Sec. 203. Unlawful Futures Trading; Foreign Futures 84 Page 3 Sec. 204. Speculative Limits 86 Sec. 205. Agricultural Options 86 Sec. 206. Introducing Broker -- Registration Requirement Customer Funds and Property 87 Sec. 207. Registration -- Technical Amendments 87 Sec. 208. Introducing Brokers -- Reports, Books, and Records 87 Sec. 209. Misrepresentation -- Technical Amendments 87 Sec. 210. Recordkeeping Conformed to Current System -- Large Trader Reports 88 Sec. 211. Registration, Associated Person Status 88 See original document-page 2 Sec. 212. Extension of Authority Regarding Proficiency Examination Conforming Amendment 90 Sec. 213. Extension of Antifraud Provision 90 Sec. 214. Extension of Authority Regarding Proficiency Examination 90 Sec. 215. Registration Information to the States 90 Sec. 216. Designation of Contract Markets 91 Sec. 217. Contract Market Rules 91 Sec. 218, 219. Arbitration 92 Sec. 220. Designation Procedures 93 Sec. 221. Appeals 93 Sec. 222. Restraining Orders 93 Sec. 223. Confidentiality Provisions -- Disclosure 94 Sec. 224. Registration Authority; Temporary License 95 Sec. 225. Statutory Disqualification from Registration; Delegation of Registration Functions 96 Sec. 226. Emergency Powers -- Judicial Review 102 Sec. 227. Certain Prohibited Transactions 102 Sec. 228. Reauthorization 103 Sec. 229. Off-exchange Jurisdiction -- Role of States 103 Sec. 230. Aiding and Abetting -- Controlling Person 104 Sec. 231. Reparations Procedure 105 Sec. 232. Technical Amendment 106 Sec. 233. Registered Futures Associations 106 Sec. 234. Leverage Transactions 108 Sec. 235. Technical Amendments 116 Sec. 236. Private Rights of Action 116 Sec. 237. Special Study of the Commodity Futures Industry 118 Sec. 238. National Futures Association Study and Transaction Fees 119 Committee Consideration 120 A. Hearings 120 Introduction 120 Reauthority of Commodity Futures Trading Commission 121 Jurisdictional Agreement with SEC 121 Page 4 Exclusive Jurisdiction -- The Role of the States 122 User Fees 122 Regulatory Powers: Margins, Speculative Limits, Contract Approvals, Emergency Authority to Intervene 124 Reparations 125 Agricultural Options 126 Leverage Contracts 126 Standards of Liability 126 Introducing Brokers 126 B. Subcommittee Markup 127 Reauthorization 127 Jurisdiction 127 1. Futures Contracts and Commodity Options 127 2. Commodity Pools 128 3. Role of the States 129 Agricultural Options 130 Definition of Commodity Trading Advisor 130 Legislative Findings 131 Speculative Limits 131 Large Trader Reports 132 Registration 132 1. Extension of Associated Person Category 132 2. Term of Registration of Associated Persons 133 3. Registration of Agents as Associated Persons 133 4. Testing 133 5. Delegation of Functions 134 6. Statutory Disqualifications 135 A. Denial, Suspension or Revocation of Registration 135 B. Responsibility for Associated Persons 136 7. Fingerprinting 136 8. Temporary License 136 See original document-page 3 Contract Market Rules 137 1. Enforcement of Rules by Contract Markets 137 2. Approval of Rules of Self-regulatory Organizations 137 A. Contract Markets 137 B. Margins 138 C. Registered Futures Associations 138 3. Contract Market Designations 138 Disclosure of Information/Confidentiality 139 1. Investigative Information 139 2. Authorized Disclosure of Certain Market Information 140 3. Sharing Information with States and Foreign Governments 140 4. Sharing Information with Contract Markets and Other Self-regulatory Organizations 141 Enforcement 141 Page 5 1. Restraining Order 141 2. Embezzlement 141 3. Secondary Responsibility; Controlling Person 142 4. Technical Amendments 143 (a) Misrepresentation 143 (b) Appellate Venue 143 5. Administrative Enforcement/Double Jeopardy 143 Remedies 143 1. Arbitration 143 2. Reparations 144 3. Private Rights of Action 145 Emergency Powers 145 Leverage Transactions 146 User Fees 146 Conflicts of Interest 147 1. "Revolving Door" Provision 147 2. Inside Trading 148 Regulatory Efficiency and Economy; Limitation on Commission Functions; Reports to Congress 148 Dealer Options 148 Export Sales Reporting 149 Study 149 Coordination of Regulations 149 Stock Index Futures Contract 150 1. Pilot Program 150 2. Moratorium 150 Trading Activities of Large Hedgers 150 Delivery Points 150 C. Full Committee Markup 151 Administration Position 153 Budget Act Compliance 161 Inflationary Impact Statement 162 Oversight Statement 162 Changes in Existing Law 163 Additional Views of Hon. Dan Glickman 239 Separate Views of Hon. George Hansen 241 The amendment is as follows: Page 1, line 3, strike out all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu thereof the following: That this Act may be cited as the "Futures Trading Act of 1982". TITLE I -- JURISDICTION OPTIONS; FUTURES CONTRACTS SEC. 101. (a) Section 2(a) of the Commodity Exchange Act (7 U.S.C. 2) is amended by -- (1) redesignating paragraph (1) as paragraph (1)(A); Page 6 See original document-page 4 (2) inserting in the third sentence of paragraph (1)(A), as so redesignated ", except to the extent otherwise provided in subparagraph (B) of this paragraph," after "exclusive jurisdiction"; (3) adding a new subparagraph (B) to read as follows: "(B) Notwithstanding any other provision of law -- "(i) This Act shall not apply to and the Commission shall have no jurisdiction to designate a board of trade as a contract market for any transaction whereby any party to such transaction acquires any put, call, or other option on one or more securities (as defined in section 2(1) of the Securities Act of 1933 or section 3(a)(10) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on the date of enactment of the Futures Trading Act of 1982, including any group or index of such securities, or any interest therein or based on the value thereof. "(ii) This Act shall apply to and the Commission shall have exclusive jurisdiction with respect to accounts, agreements (including any transaction which is of the character of, or is commonly known to the trade as, an 'option', 'privilege', 'indemnity', 'bid', 'offer', 'put', 'call', 'advance guaranty', or 'decline guaranty') and transactions involving, and may designate a board of trade as a contract market in, contracts of sale (or options on such contracts) for future delivery of a group or index of securities (or any interest therein or based upon the value thereof): Provided, however, That no board of trade shall be designated as a contract market with respect to any such contracts of sale (or options on such contracts) for future delivery unless the board of trade making such application demonstrates and the Commission expressly finds that the specific contract (or option on such contract) with respect to which the application has been made meets the following minimum requirements: "(a) Settlement of or delivery on such contract (or option on such contract) shall be effected in cash or by means other than the transfer or receipt of any security, except an exempted security under section 3 of the Securities Act of 1933 or section 3(a)(12) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 as in effect on the date of enactment of the Futures Trading Act of 1982 (other than any municipal security,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Commodities Litigation: the Impact of RICO
    DePaul Law Review Volume 34 Issue 1 Fall 1984 Article 3 Commodities Litigation: The Impact of RICO Michael S. Sackheim Francis J. Leto Steven A. Friedman Follow this and additional works at: https://via.library.depaul.edu/law-review Recommended Citation Michael S. Sackheim, Francis J. Leto & Steven A. Friedman, Commodities Litigation: The Impact of RICO , 34 DePaul L. Rev. 23 (1984) Available at: https://via.library.depaul.edu/law-review/vol34/iss1/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the College of Law at Via Sapientiae. It has been accepted for inclusion in DePaul Law Review by an authorized editor of Via Sapientiae. For more information, please contact [email protected]. COMMODITIES LITIGATION: THE IMPACT OF RICO Michael S. Sackheim* Francis J. Leto** Steven A. Friedman*** INTRODUCTION The number of private actions commenced against commodities brokers and other professionals in the futures area has increased dramatically in the last few years. Although these lawsuits primarily have been based on viola- tions of the Commodities Exchange Act (CEAct),' the complaints have fre- quently included allegations that the federal Racketeering Influenced and Cor- rupt Organization Act (RICO)2 was also violated by the subject defendents. In invoking the racketeering laws, the plaintiff often seeks to take advantage of the treble damage provision of RICO.3 This article will analyze the application of the racketeering laws to com- mon, garden-variety commodities fraud cases. Specifically, this article addresses those cases where a brokerage firm is sued because of the illegal acts of its agents. It is the authors' contention that the treble damages pro- vision of RICO should not be applied to legitimate brokerage firms who are innocently involved in instances of commodities fraud through the acts of their agents.
    [Show full text]
  • The Political Dynamics of Derivative Securities Regulation
    The Political Dynamics of Derivative Securities Regulation Roberta Romanot The U.S. regulation of derivative securities--financial instruments whose value is derived from an underlying security or index of securities-is distinctive from that (~f other nations because it has multiple regulators for .financial derivatives and securities. Commentators have debated whether shifting to the unitary regulator approach taken by other nations would be more desirable and legislation to effect such a ~:hange has been repeatedly introduced in Congress. But it has not gotten very far. This article analyzes the political history of the regulation of derivative securities in the United States, in order to explain the institutional difference between the U.S. regime and other nations' and its staying power. It examines the j;JUr principal federal regulatory initiatives regarding derivative securities (the Future Trading Act of 1921, the Commodity Exchange Act of 1936, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission Act of 1974, and the Futures Trading Practices Act (if 1992), by a narrative account of the legislative process and a quantitative analysis (~f roll-call votes, committee-hearing witnesses, and issue salience. The multiple regulator status quo has persisted, despite dramatic changes in derivative markets, repeated efforts to alter it (by the securities industry in particular) and sh(fting political majorities, because of its support by the committee organization of Congress and by a tripartite winning coalition (if interest groups created by the 1974 legislation (farmers, futures exchanges, and banks). In what can best be ascribed to historical j;Jrtuity, different .financial market regulators are subject to the oversight (~f different congressional committees, and, consequently, the establishment (~f a unitary regulator would diminish the jurisdiction, and hence influence, ()f one (if the congressional committees.
    [Show full text]
  • Comment Cftc V. Gibraltar Monetary Corp. and Vicarious Liability Under
    COMMENT CFTC V. GIBRALTAR MONETARY CORP. AND VICARIOUS LIABILITY UNDER THE COMMODITY EXCHANGE ACT Jason E. Friedman* This Comment analyzes CFTC v. Gibraltar Monetary Corp., a 2009 decision in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit introduced a control requirement into the Commodity Exchange Act’s vicarious liability provision. In so doing, the court rejected the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission’s long-held totality of the circumstances approach, in which any one factor, including control, is not dispositive of an agency relationship. This decision has created an undesirable situation in which retail foreign exchange dealers and futures commission merchants need not investigate the character of their introducing entities before retaining them, allowing them to easily avoid liability for frauds committed in furtherance of mutual profit. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 738 I. CLIMBING UP GIBRALTAR: COMMODITIES REGULATION, THE COMMODITY EXCHANGE ACT’S VICARIOUS LIABILITY PROVISION, AND CHEVRON DEFERENCE ........................................ 740 A. Overview of the Commodity Futures and Options Markets . 7 4 0 1. Commodities: More Than Just the Bacon in Your BLT ... 742 2. Commodities Derivatives Contracts: Futures, Forwards, and Options ....................................................................... 744 3. Categories of CFTC Registrants ........................................ 745 4. CFTC Enforcement Actions and
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Regulation of Agricultural Trade Options
    FEDERAL REGULATION OF AGRICULTURAL TRADE OPTIONS Michael S. Sackheim* I. Introduction .............................................................................................. 443 II. Regulation of Deferred Delivery Commodity Transactions .................... 445 III. Economic Characteristics of Commodity Options ................................... 446 IV. Regulation of Commodity Options .......................................................... 448 V. Pilot Program for Agricultural Trade Options ......................................... 451 A. Registration of Agricultural Trade Option Merchants ...................... 452 B. Disclosure .......................................................................................... 452 C. Financial Safeguards .......................................................................... 453 D. Recordkeeping and Reporting............................................................ 454 E. Physical Delivery Requirement ......................................................... 454 F. Persons Exempt from ATOM Registration ....................................... 457 VI. Conclusion ................................................................................................ 457 I. INTRODUCTION To manage the risks of fluctuations in commodity prices, various forms of hedging devices have been developed, including deliverable forward contracts, risk- shifting exchange-traded futures contracts and commodity options. Agricultural prices are often subject to greater volatility and uncertainty than prices
    [Show full text]
  • A History of Information in Interwar Agricultural Economics Thomas Delcey, Guillaume Noblet
    ”The Eyes and Ears of the Agricultural Markets”: A History of Information in Interwar Agricultural Economics Thomas Delcey, Guillaume Noblet To cite this version: Thomas Delcey, Guillaume Noblet. ”The Eyes and Ears of the Agricultural Markets”: A History of Information in Interwar Agricultural Economics. 2021. hal-03227973 HAL Id: hal-03227973 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-03227973 Preprint submitted on 17 May 2021 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. ”The Eyes and Ears of the Agricultural Markets”∗ A History of Information in Interwar Agricultural Economics Delcey, Thomas† Noblet, Guillaume‡ May 2021 Abstract This article offers a historical analysis of the contributions of U.S. interwar agri- cultural economics to the economics of information. Concerned with improving the circulation of information on agricultural markets, agricultural economists an- alyzed the relationship between agents’ information and the behavior of prices on agricultural commodity exchanges, thus anticipating modern debates on informa- tional efficiency. We show that these debates were part of a more general context of agricultural market reform led by the U.S. administration to improve the pro- duction and diffusion of economic information. We argue that such reforms were a prerequisite for theoretical discussions on information, and established institutional tools that are still active today, such as the USDA market news service.
    [Show full text]
  • The Regulation of Commodity Options
    VOLUME 1978 DECEMBER NUMBER 5 THE REGULATION OF COMMODITY OPTIONS ROBERT C. LOWER* The Commodity Futures Trading Commission1 (CFTC) is cur- rently considering the implementation of a pilot program for commod- © 1979 Robert C. Lower. * A.B. 1969, Harvard College; J.D. 1972, Harvard Law School; Member, Georgia Bar, Partner, Alston, Miller & Gaines, Atlanta, Ga. and Washington, D.C. THE FOLLOWING CITATIONS WILL BE USED IN THIS ARTICLE: Extend Commodiy Exchange Act: HearingsBefore the Subcomm. on Conservation and Credit of the House Comm on Agriculture, 95th Cong., 2d Sess. (1978) [hereinafter cited as 1978 House Hearings]; Agriculture,Rural Development andRelatedAgencies Appropriationsfor1979: HearingsBefore a SubcomnL of the Comn on Appropriations,95th Cong., 2d Sess. (1978) [hereinafter cited as 1978 House AppropriationHearings]; Reauthorization of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission: Hearings Before the Sub- comm. on AgriculturalResearch and Genera/Legislationof the Senate Comm. on Agriculture, Nutri- tion and Forestry, 95th Cong., 2d Sess. (1978) [hereinafter cited as 1978 Senate Hearings]; Commodity Futures Trading Commission Act of 1974 Hearings on H.R. 11955 Before the House Comm on Agriculture, 93d Cong., 2d Sess. (1974) [hereinafter cited as 1974 House Hearings]; Commodity Futures Trading Commission Act: Hearings Before the Senate Comm. on Agricul- ture and Forestry, 93d Cong., 2d Sess. (1974) [hereinafter cited as 1974 Senate Hearings]; Hearingson HR. 6772 to Amend the Grain FuturesAct Before the Senate Comm on Agricul- ture and Forestry, 74th Cong., 2d Sess. (1936) [hereinafter cited as 1936 Hearings]; RECOMMENDED POLICIES ON COMMODITY OPTION TRANSACTIONS: REPORT OF THE ADVI- SORY COMMITTEE ON THE DEFINITION AND REGULATION OF MARKET INSTRUMENTS TO THE COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION (July 6, 1976) [hereinafter cited as ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT]; P.
    [Show full text]
  • Manipulation of Commodity Futures Prices-The Unprosecutable Crime
    Manipulation of Commodity Futures Prices-The Unprosecutable Crime Jerry W. Markhamt The commodity futures market has been beset by large-scale market manipulations since its beginning. This article chronicles these manipulations to show that they threaten the economy and to demonstrate that all attempts to stop these manipulations have failed. Many commentators suggest that a redefinition of "manipulation" is the solution. Markham argues that enforcement of a redefined notion of manipulation would be inefficient and costly, and would ultimately be no more successful than earlierefforts. Instead, Markham arguesfor a more active Commodity Futures Trading Commission empowered not only to prohibit certain activities which, broadly construed, constitute manipulation, but also to adopt affirmative regulations which will help maintain a 'fair and orderly market." This more powerful Commission would require more resources than the current CFTC, but Markham argues that the additionalcost would be more than offset by the increasedefficiencies of reduced market manipulation. Introduction ......................................... 282 I. Historical Manipulation in the Commodity Futures Markets ..... 285 A. The Growth of Commodity Futures Trading and Its Role ..... 285 B. Early Manipulations .............................. 288 C. The FTC Study Reviews the Issue of Manipulation ......... 292 D. Early Legislation Fails to Prevent Manipulations .......... 298 II. The Commodity Exchange Act Proves to Be Ineffective in Dealing with M anipulation .................................. 313 A. The Commodity Exchange Authority Unsuccessfully Struggles with M anipulation ................................ 313 B. The 1968 Amendments Seek to Address the Manipulation Issue. 323 C. The 1968 Amendments Prove to be Ineffective ............ 328 tPartner, Rogers & Wells, Washington, D.C.; Adjunct Professor, Georgetown University Law Center; B.S. 1969, Western Kentucky University; J.D.
    [Show full text]
  • Hedge-To-Arrive Contracts: Jurisdictional Issues Under the Commodity Exchange Act
    Hedge-to-Arrive Contracts: Jurisdictional Issues Under the Commodity Exchange Act JENNIFER DURHAM KING* & JAMES J. MOYLAN'* INTRODUCrION When federal legislation and unusual real-world developments collide, litigation ensues. This was certainly true in the agricultural arena during the summer of 1996. The Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 brought dramatic changes to a variety of federal agricultural support pro- grams.! In response, more sophisticated and flexible cash forward contracts were developed, among those are the Hedge-to-Arrive ("HTA") contracts.' At the same time, grain prices soared to record levels in the summer of 1996.' Something had to give, and give it did, as the usually friendly relationship between farmers and grain elevator operators turned to outright warfare in the courts. The first judicial opinion issued from this conflagration is In re Grain Land Coop Cases.4 In Grain Land, the Minnesota federal district court held that the HTA contracts at issue were cash forward contracts, not futures 5 contracts. Thus, they are outside the scope of the Commodity Exchange Act 6 ("CEA") and the regulatory jurisdiction of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission ("CFTC"). I. BACKGROUND Section 2(a)(1)(A) of the CEA grants the CFTC exclusive jurisdiction over, "accounts, agreements.., and transactions involving contracts of sale * B.A. 1989, Miami University of Ohio; J.D. 1998, liT Chicago-Kent College of Law. ** B.S. B.A. 1969, University of Denver; J.D. 1971, University of Denver, College of Law. 1. Pub. L. No. 104-127, 110 Stat. 888 (1996). 2. David C. Barrett, Jr., Hedge-to-Arrive Contracts, 2 DRAKE J.
    [Show full text]
  • FULL THESIS 19 September
    The United States Federal Government and the Making of Modern Futures Markets, 1920-1936 Rasheed KM Saleuddin Corpus Christi College September 2017 This dissertation is submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. i ii The Unites States Federal Government and the Making of Modern Futures Markets, 1920-36 Rasheed Saleuddin In 1921, 1924 and 1929-1934, markets for the future delivery of wheat went through periods of extreme volatility and/or significant depression, and in all three cases there were significant and long-lasting changes to both the institutional and regulatory framework of these Chicago- dominated grain markets. There was no real change after these key reforms until 1974, while indeed much of the original regulatory and market innovation remains. The result of the severe depression of 1921 was the Futures Trading Act of 1921. In 1924-25, the so-called ‘Cutten corner’ market turmoil was followed by three key institutional innovations brought about in 1926 by US federal government coercion of the grain futures trading industry in collusion with industry leaders. The Great Depression gave birth to the 1936 Commodity Exchange Act. This Act was based on research done by the government and/or with government-mandated evidence that essentially saw the small grain gambler as needing protection from the grain futures industry, and was pushed through by a coalition of farmers’ organisations and the agency responsible for the 1922 Act’s administration. The government demanded information that was begrudgingly provided, and the studies of this data formed the basis of a political and intellectual justification of the usefulness of futures markets to the marketing of farm products that influenced the Act of 1936 and – more importantly - continues to today.
    [Show full text]
  • Chronological Landmarks in American Agriculture (AIB-425)
    A. 2 '/^i> 'è ^¿^ //?^{S United States i)] Department of ^"' Agriculture Chronological Economics Research Service Landmarks In Agriculture Information Bulletin American Number 425 Agriculture It's Easy To Order Another Copy! Just dial 1-800»999"6779. Toll free (in the United States and Canada). An other areas pïease dial 301-725-7937. Ask for Chronological Landmarks in American Agriculture (AIB-425). The cost is $11.00 per copy. For non-U.S. addresses (including Canada), add 25 percent. Charge your purchase to your VISA or MasterCard, or we can bill you. Or send a check or purchase order (made payable to ERS-NASS) to: ERS-NASS P.O. Box 1608 Rockville, MD 20849-1608. We'll fill your order by first-class mail. Revised version, Washington, DC November 1990 CHRONOLOGICAL LANDMARKS IN AMERICAN AGRICULTURE Compiled by Maryanna S. Smith and Dennis M, Roth INTRODUCTION This chronology lists major events in the history of U.S. agriculture. A source to which the reader may turn for additional information on the subject is included with most of the events. Generally, each source appears only once, although it may apply to more than one chronological citation. The reader interested in a particular subject can compile a short bibliography by consulting each citation for that subject. Key inventions, laws, changes in land policies, individuals, contributions, the development of institutions, and the introduction of new types of crops and livestock are included. There are also notes on all commissioners, secretaries of agriculture, and agencies established in response to new programs in the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • The Development of Commodity Position Limits in the United States Deanna R
    From inception to today: the development of commodity position limits in the United States Deanna R. Reitman and Sarah Nabors Contents Introduction ___________________________________________________________________ 1 Legislative History of Commodity Position Limits ______________________________________ 1 Introduction ______________________________________________________________________ 1 Food Control Act of 1917 ____________________________________________________________ 2 Future Trading Act of 1921___________________________________________________________ 2 Grain Futures Act of 1922 ___________________________________________________________ 3 Congressional Debates and Studies, 1920s and 1930s _____________________________________ 3 Commodity Exchange Act of 1936 _____________________________________________________ 4 Implementation of CEA _____________________________________________________________ 6 1968 Amendments _________________________________________________________________ 7 1974 Amendments _________________________________________________________________ 7 Exchange-Set Limits _______________________________________________________________ 8 Position Accountability ______________________________________________________________ 9 Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 (CFMA) ___________________________________ 10 CFTC Reauthorization Act of 2008 ___________________________________________________ 11 Legislative History of the Bona Fide Hedge Exemption ____________________________________ 11 Introduction _________________________________________________________________
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Re Ulati N F the U~S~ D Arketin Stem
    Minnesota Economic FEDERAL RE ULATI N Regulation Monograph 4 F THE U~S~ D ARKETIN STEM Miscellaneous Report AD-MRm2338 Agricultural Experiment Station University of Minnesota 1985 FEDERAL REGULATION OF THE U.S. FOOD MARKETING SYSTEM Tim Burke and Dale C. Dahl Minnesota Economic Regulation Monograph #4 Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station Miscellaneous Report AD-MR-2338 University of Minnesota St. Paul, Minnesota February 1985 FOREWORD This monograph is part of the Minnesota Economic Regulation Monograph series, a comprehensive survey of law pertaining to the production, processing and distribution of food and other farm comr modities in the United States. It outlines two types of regulations: (1) those designed to protect the health and safety of consumers and improve their knowledge about food purchasing; and (2) those that protect the farmer's product and input markets, particularly in terms of trade practices and bargaining power. Dale c. Dahl Project Leader CONTENTS Preface. vii Chapter 1. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND. 1 Development of American Food Laws in the Nineteenth Century 1 Evolution of the Major Federal Acts • 1 Federal Food and Drugs Act of 1906 • 2 Packers and Stockyards Act • 3 Fair Packaging and Labeling Act. 3 Notes to Chapter 1. 4 Chapter 2. CONSUMER-ORIENTED REGULATION • 7 Major Legislation • 7 Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act • 7 Structure of the Act. 7 Relevant Definitions. 7 General Provisions. 7 Special Provisions. 10 Fair Packaging and Labeling Act. 11 Basic Provisions. 12 Enforcement Authority • 13 Poison Prevention Packaging Act. 13 Inspection Acts • 14 Federal Meat Inspection Act. 14 Basic Provisions. 14 Personal Exemption. 15 Imported and Exported Meat.
    [Show full text]