HB2156, titled the Fair Access to Agriculture Disaster Programs Act, would amend the Food Security Act of 1985 to create a new exception to certain payment limitations for agricultural disaster-related benefits. Under the bill, a person or legal entity would not be subject to the existing payment cap for specified “excepted payments or benefits” if at least 75 percent of their average adjusted gross income comes from farming, ranching, or silviculture activities. The bill also expressly counts related income sources such as agritourism, direct-to-consumer marketing of agricultural products, sale of agricultural equipment owned by the producer, and other agriculture-related activities as determined by the Secretary of Agriculture.
The bill’s practical effect would be to expand eligibility for certain USDA disaster and support payments by exempting more farm-dependent operators from payment limits. It amends 7 U.S.C. 1308-3a(b) and applies the exception to payments under subtitle E of title I of the Agricultural Act of 2014 and under section 196 of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996. In effect, the measure would allow qualifying producers and entities with substantial farm-derived income to receive these benefits without being constrained by the general limitation that otherwise applies.
The available legislative record shows no committee transcript, no recorded votes, and no stated opposition or support in the materials provided. The bill was introduced in the House and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, then to the Subcommittee on General Farm Commodities, Risk Management, and Credit. Based on the sponsors and the bill’s purpose, the overall sentiment appears favorable toward providing relief and flexibility to agricultural producers who rely primarily on farm income.
The main policy issue is whether the income-based exception is too broad or too narrow. Supporters are likely to view the bill as a targeted way to help family farms, ranchers, and forestry-related operations access disaster assistance more fairly, especially where diversified farm businesses generate income through agritourism or direct marketing. Potential concerns would center on whether the 75 percent threshold and expanded definition of agricultural income could weaken payment-limit safeguards or create uneven treatment among recipients of federal farm disaster programs.
Impact
HB2156 would amend federal agricultural law by adding a new statutory exception to payment limitations in the Food Security Act of 1985 for certain disaster and support payments. It would affect USDA administration of specified farm program benefits by allowing qualifying persons or entities with at least 75 percent of average adjusted gross income derived from farming, ranching, or silviculture to bypass the usual cap. The bill would primarily affect agricultural producers, farm businesses, ranchers, forestry-related operations, and entities engaged in agritourism or direct agricultural marketing.
Sentiment
The limited legislative history suggests generally positive sentiment toward the bill, with bipartisan sponsorship indicating cross-party interest in improving access to agricultural disaster programs. There are no recorded votes or hearing remarks in the provided materials, so no formal opposition is documented here. The bill’s framing as a fairness measure for farm-dependent operators suggests support for expanding relief to producers whose income is overwhelmingly tied to agriculture.
Contention
The likely point of contention is the scope of the exception to payment limits. Supporters would argue that producers who earn most of their income from agriculture should not be constrained by the same limits as non-farm recipients, especially when disaster assistance is intended to stabilize farm operations. Critics may worry that the bill could loosen payment controls too much, potentially increasing federal costs or allowing larger entities to receive more assistance than intended. Another possible issue is the Secretary’s discretion to define additional “agricultural related activities,” which could raise questions about how broadly the exception is applied.