PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · May 24, 2007
Rural America Preservation Act of 2007 - Amends the Food Security Act of 1985 to reduce maximum annual direct and counter-cyclical commodity payments to $20,000 and $30,000, respectively. Revises limitation provisions for marketing loan gains, loan deficiency payments, and commodity certificate transactions, and establishes an annual combined limitation of $75,000 for such payments. Doubles payment limitations for single farming operations. Limits an individual to a combined annual payment of $250,000.
Makes a person who commits fraud in connection with a scheme or device to evade certain program limitations (multiple entities, citizenship) ineligible for farm benefits for six years.
Revises provisions respecting limitation of benefits to active farmers.
Makes foreign entities ineligible for agricultural program benefits.
Expresses the sense of the Senate that any savings achieved by this Act should be used to establish a permanent agricultural disaster relief program.
People & committees
Sen. Dorgan, Byron L. [D-ND] · D–ND
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 14, 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 S.1486 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 S.1486 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 S.1486 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 S.1486 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.