PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Conservation, Credit, Rural Development, and Research.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jul 28, 2006
Amends the Food Security Act of 1985 to revise the farmland protection program.
Includes as eligible program land woodlots, wooded corners, and forested riparian areas that comprise up to 50% of the offered acreage.
Gives priority to farm and ranchland: (1) with prime, unique, or other productive soils at risk of nonagricultural development; (2) that will stay in production agriculture; (3) in rural communities that face intense pressure for conversion to nonagricultural use; or (4) in areas that have locally-led land-use planning and zoning strategies.
Provides for: (1) grants to eligible entities to protect agricultural production capacity by limiting incompatible nonagricultural land use; and (2) grant agreements with eligible entities to purchase conservation easements using a combination of their own funds and grant funds.
Sets forth reversionary interest and cost-sharing provisions.
People & committees
Rep. Holden, Tim [D-PA-17] · D–PA
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 Conservation, Credit, Rural Development, and Research.
Executive Comment Requested from USDA.
Referred to the House Committee on Agriculture.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Jan 24, 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.6000 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.6000 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.6000 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.6000 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.