PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on General Farm Commodities, Risk Management, and Credit.
Congressional Research Service
No official summary is available in the imported record yet.
People & committees
Rep. Finstad, Brad [R-MN-1] · R–MN
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on General Farm Commodities, Risk Management, and Credit.
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.
Source last updated: Jan 31, 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.1991 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.1991 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.1991 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.1991 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 · 2025-03-10 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.
This proposal would raise borrowing limits for farm ownership loans, farm operating loans, and smaller loans called microloans. It would also require the Farm Service Agency to allow certain troubled, agency-guaranteed loans to be replaced with loans issued directly by the agency. Borrowers seeking that refinancing would have to meet financial and other safeguards; approval would not be automatic.
Limitations on amount of farm ownership loans Section 305(a)(2) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1925(a)(2)) is amended by striking $600,000, or, in the case of a loan guaranteed by the Secretary, $1,750,000 (increased, beginning with fiscal year 2019 and inserting $850,000, or, in the case of a loan guaranteed by the Secretary, $3,500,000 (increased, beginning with fiscal year 2025.
Limitations on amount of operating loans Section 313(a)(1) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1943(a)(1)) is amended by striking $400,000, or, in the case of a loan guaranteed by the Secretary, $1,750,000 (increased, beginning with fiscal year 2019 and inserting $750,000, or, in the case of a loan guaranteed by the Secretary, $3,000,000 (increased, beginning with fiscal year 2025.
5. Limitation on microloan amounts Section 313(c)(2) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1943(c)(2)) is amended by striking $50,000 and inserting $100,000.
shall promulgate regulations allowing certain loans guaranteed by the Farm Service Agency to be refinanced into direct loans issued by the Farm Service Agency, in accordance with this section.
all other criteria established by the Secretary for purposes of this section to protect taxpayer funds and the loan programs of the Farm Service Agency have been satisfied.
Section 2 would replace the farm ownership loan limit of $600,000 with $850,000 and the guaranteed-loan base limit of $1.75 million with $3.5 million. It would also change the guaranteed-loan adjustment language to begin with fiscal year 2025 instead of fiscal year 2019.
Limitations on amount of farm ownership loans Section 305(a)(2) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1925(a)(2)) is amended by striking $600,000, or, in the case of a loan guaranteed by the Secretary, $1,750,000 (increased, beginning with fiscal year 2019 and inserting $850,000, or, in the case of a loan guaranteed by the Secretary, $3,500,000 (increased, beginning with fiscal year 2025.
Section 2 would replace the farm operating loan limit of $400,000 with $750,000 and the guaranteed-loan base limit of $1.75 million with $3 million. It would change the guaranteed-loan adjustment language to begin with fiscal year 2025 instead of fiscal year 2019.
Limitations on amount of operating loans Section 313(a)(1) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1943(a)(1)) is amended by striking $400,000, or, in the case of a loan guaranteed by the Secretary, $1,750,000 (increased, beginning with fiscal year 2019 and inserting $750,000, or, in the case of a loan guaranteed by the Secretary, $3,000,000 (increased, beginning with fiscal year 2025.
Section 3 would change the inflation calculation in the referenced law. It would replace the Prices Paid By Farmers Index and its July-to-July comparison periods with equally weighted national average per-acre values for farm real estate, cropland, and pasture, comparing the preceding year with the year before it. The values would come from the Agriculture Department's Agricultural Land Values report.
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking of the Prices Paid By Farmers Index (as compiled by the National Agricultural Statistics Service of the Department of Agriculture) for the 12-month period ending on July 31 of the immediately preceding fiscal year and inserting of the per acre average United States farm real estate value, the per acre average United States cropland value, and the per acre average United States pasture value for the preceding year (as published in the applicable Agricultural Land Values report of the National Agricultural Statistics Service of the Department of Agriculture), weighted equally
(2) in paragraph (2), by striking of such index (as so defined) for the 12-month period that immediately precedes the 12-month period described in paragraph (1) and inserting of the per acre average United States farm real estate value, the per acre average United States cropland value, and the per acre average United States pasture value for the year immediately preceding the year described in paragraph (1) (as so published), weighted equally.
Section 4 would revise the down payment loan calculation to use 45 percent of the lesser of the two remaining measures, subject to section 305(a). It would delete the third measure, subparagraph (C). Because the existing measures are not reproduced, the supplied text does not establish their amounts or the resulting dollar limit.
Section 310E(b)(1) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1935(b)(1)) is amended— (1) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by striking exceed 45 percent of the least and inserting exceed, subject to section 305(a), 45 percent of the lesser; (2) in subparagraph (A), by adding or after the semicolon; (3) in subparagraph (B), by striking ; or and inserting a period; and (4) by striking subparagraph (C).
Section 5 would increase the statutory microloan amount limit from $50,000 to $100,000.
5. Limitation on microloan amounts Section 313(c)(2) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1943(c)(2)) is amended by striking $50,000 and inserting $100,000.
Section 6 would require the Secretary of Agriculture, acting through the Farm Service Agency Administrator, to issue refinancing regulations within one year after enactment. Those rules would allow certain agency-guaranteed loans to be replaced with direct loans issued by the agency.
Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Agriculture, acting through the Administrator of the Farm Service Agency (referred to in this section as the Secretary), shall promulgate regulations allowing certain loans guaranteed by the Farm Service Agency to be refinanced into direct loans issued by the Farm Service Agency, in accordance with this section.
Refinancing would be permitted only if the Secretary finds that the guaranteed loan is in financial trouble, the borrower unsuccessfully tried to work with the lender, the financed operation has a reasonable chance of success, and all additional criteria set by the Secretary to protect taxpayer funds and agency loan programs are met.
may be refinanced into a direct loan described in that subsection only if the Secretary determines that— (A) the guaranteed loan is distressed; (B) the borrower on that guaranteed loan has attempted to work with the lender and has been unsuccessful; (C) a reasonable chance for the success of the operation financed by the guaranteed loan exists; and (D) all other criteria established by the Secretary for purposes of this section to protect taxpayer funds and the loan programs of the Farm Service Agency have been satisfied.
The Secretary could find a reasonable chance of success if all relevant problems have been identified and can be corrected, and correcting them could put the operation on a sound financial footing. This is a permitted basis for the decision, not a promise that the operation will succeed.
the Secretary may determine that a reasonable chance for the success of an operation exists if the Secretary determines that— (A) all relevant problems with the operation financed by the guaranteed loan— (i) have been identified; and (ii) can be corrected; and (B) on correction of those problems, the operation can achieve, or be returned to, a sound financial basis.
The Secretary would have to ensure that refinancing does not change either the guaranteed-loan or direct-loan subsidy rate—the rate used to measure the government's subsidy cost. This is a requirement for implementation, not evidence that refinancing would have no total budget cost.
In carrying out this section, the Secretary shall ensure that the refinancing of guaranteed loans into direct loans has no impact on the subsidy rate of— (1) loans guaranteed by the Farm Service Agency; or (2) direct loans issued by the Farm Service Agency.
The Secretary could refinance a guaranteed loan from one Farm Service Agency program into a direct loan under another agency program. The Secretary would have to consider the transfer appropriate and follow the laws governing the new loan's program.
the Secretary may refinance a loan guaranteed under 1 program of the Farm Service Agency into a direct loan issued under another program of the Farm Service Agency, as the Secretary determines to be appropriate and in accordance with the laws applicable to the program under which the new direct loan is issued.
A new direct loan used for refinancing would remain subject to applicable direct-loan maximum amounts, including the referenced farm ownership and operating loan limits where applicable.
A direct loan issued by the Farm Service Agency pursuant to the regulations promulgated under subsection (a) shall be subject to any otherwise applicable limitation on the maximum amount of a direct loan issued by the Farm Service Agency, including, if applicable, the limitations described in— (1) section 305 of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1925); and (2) section 313 of that Act (7 U.S.C. 1943).
Limitations on amount of farm ownership loans Section 305(a)(2)
Limitations on amount of operating loans Section 313(a)(1)
Section 7 would express Congress's view that access to credit is essential for farmers and ranchers and that Farm Service Agency loan programs should be fully funded to meet demand, help beginning farmers and ranchers, and support family farms. This is a statement of policy preference; it does not itself provide funding or establish those hoped-for benefits.
It is the sense of the Congress that— (1) access to credit is essential to the success of farmers and ranchers; and (2) microloans, direct loans, and guaranteed loans provided by the Farm Service Agency should be fully funded to meet producer demand, help beginning farmers and ranchers, and support family farms.
The official-actions snapshot updated January 31, 2026, records introduction in the House and referral to the House Committee on Agriculture on March 10, 2025, followed by referral to the Subcommittee on General Farm Commodities, Risk Management, and Credit on April 4, 2025. These are the actions shown in that dated snapshot.
Source snapshot updated 2026-01-31T09:05:28Z. 2025-04-04: Referred to the Subcommittee on General Farm Commodities, Risk Management, and Credit. 2025-03-10: Referred to the House Committee on Agriculture. 2025-03-10: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2025-03-10. 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 provision unrelated to the agricultural-credit subject was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion does not establish the absence of riders in 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 in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish formal earmark status in materials not supplied.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
None identified in the reviewed text
No materially narrow carve-out, special exemption, or preferential treatment beyond the loan programs' intended beneficiaries was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not cover other versions or accompanying materials.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Jan 31, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI