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 · Jan 12, 2007
Emergency Farm Relief Act of 2007 - Directs the Secretary of Agriculture to provide financial assistance for: (1) crop disaster assistance for qualifying quantity or quality losses (other than sugar beets) for the 2005 and/or 2006 crop due to weather or related conditions (including disease, insects, and delayed harvest); (2) dairy losses; (3) livestock assistance for 2005 and 2006 disaster-caused losses, including losses from blizzards that began in 2006 and continued into 2007; (4) livestock indemnity payments for 2005 and 2006 disaster-caused losses, including wildfires, hurricanes, floods, extreme heat, anthrax, and blizzards that began in 2006 and continued into 2007; (5) ewe lamb replacement and retention; (6) sugar beet disaster assistance for crop year 2005 or 2006; (7) sugarcane growers in Hawaii through a payment to an agricultural transportation cooperative in Hawaii; and (8) flooded crop and grazing land in the Devils Lake basin, the McHugh, Lake Laretta, and Rose Lake closed drainage areas, North Dakota.
Directs the Secretary to make grants to state agriculture departments or comparable agencies in qualified states for direct economic loss payments to eligible small businesses that suffered weather-related agricultural losses in crop year 2005 or 2006.
Directs the Secretary to use specified funds to carry out emergency measures under: (1) the emergency watershed protection program, including specified projects in Hawaii; (2) the emergency conservation program, including wildfire recovery efforts in Montana and other states and specified projects in Hawaii; and (3) the environmental quality incentives program, including wildfire and blizzard recovery efforts in Montana and other states.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Directs the Secretary to use specified funds to hire additional county Farm Service Agency personnel to expedite the delivery of agricultural disaster and economic assistance.
People & committees
Sen. Conrad, Kent [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.284 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.284 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.284 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.284 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.