Ensuring Disaster Recovery and Resilience for Specialty Crops Act
- Sponsor
- Sen. Schiff, Adam B. [D-CA]
- Committees
- Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jun 2, 2026
Bottom line
This bill creates a permanent, dedicated disaster assistance program for specialty crop producers, aiming to provide more stable and tailored support than existing ad hoc programs.
What it actually does
This bill establishes a permanent framework within the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 to provide direct disaster assistance to producers of specialty crops. It mandates that payments be calculated based on a producer's historical sales and a Secretary-determined payment factor, while also requiring consideration of specialty crops' higher value, greater input costs, and diverse legal structures.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue this bill provides much-needed stability and tailored support for specialty crop producers, who often face unique risks and higher input costs not adequately addressed by general disaster programs. It ensures a consistent mechanism for recovery from adverse events, including economic disruptions, safeguarding a vital sector of American agriculture.
Opponents contend
Potential opponents might argue that creating a permanent, dedicated program for specialty crops could lead to increased federal spending without sufficient oversight or could set a precedent for other agricultural sectors to demand similar permanent, tailored assistance, potentially complicating budget processes. Concerns might also arise regarding the specific payment calculation methodology and its potential for abuse or inequitable distribution.
The bill is very short and can be read quickly, allowing ample time for a thorough evaluation of its provisions.
Section 2(a), inserting new Section 197(a) into the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996
Creation of Permanent Specialty Crop Disaster Assistance Program
This provision directs the Secretary of Agriculture to create a permanent program offering direct financial aid to specialty crop producers whose operations are negatively affected by adverse events, including economic crises or market disruptions. This moves away from ad-hoc disaster relief to a standing framework, providing a more predictable safety net.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this framework is crucial for the long-term viability of specialty crop agriculture, providing a predictable and reliable safety net against unforeseen disasters, which are becoming more frequent and severe.
Critics contend
Critics might express concern that a permanent program could lead to moral hazard, potentially disincentivizing producers from adopting risk mitigation strategies if they know federal aid is always available.
Tradeoffs
Balances the need for a stable support system for a vulnerable agricultural sector against concerns about federal expenditure and potential disincentives for private risk management.
Section 2(a), new Section 197(b)
Sales-Based Payment Calculation
The bill specifies that payments to producers will be calculated by multiplying a producer's sales of specialty crops from a preceding calendar year (or average over several years) by a payment factor determined by the Secretary. This aims to tie assistance directly to the scale of a producer's operation and their historical revenue.
Section 2(a), new Section 197(c)
Acknowledgment of Unique Specialty Crop Characteristics
This section mandates that the Secretary, when providing direct assistance, must consider the higher value and greater input costs associated with specialty crops compared to other crops, as well as the diverse legal structures used by specialty crop producers. This ensures the program is tailored to the sector's specific needs and economic realities.
Section 2(a), new Section 197(d) and Section 2(b) conforming amendment
Payment Caps and Eligibility Rules
This provision sets limits on the total amount of payments a person or entity can receive, generally aligning with existing Food Security Act of 1985 limits. However, it includes an exception for entities where 75% or more of their income derives from farming, ranching, or silviculture, allowing the Secretary to set a higher cap (not less than $500,000). It also applies existing notification, eligibility, and denial rules from the Food Security Act of 1985.
The definition of "adverse event" is broad, explicitly including "an economic crisis or market disruption," as determined by the Secretary.
Section 2(a), new Section 197(a)
Why it matters:While it is standard legislative practice to define the scope within the operative clause, the inclusion of non-physical events like "economic crisis" is a substantive expansion that a casual reader might miss.
Case for: Supporters would argue this broad definition provides necessary flexibility for the Secretary to respond to a wide range of threats beyond traditional weather-related disasters, recognizing that economic factors can be just as devastating for specialty crop producers.
Case against: Critics might contend that such a broad definition grants excessive discretionary power to the Secretary, potentially leading to subjective determinations of eligibility and expanding the scope of federal intervention beyond direct physical disasters.
Estimated impact: Significantly expands the types of events for which specialty crop producers could receive federal assistance, potentially increasing program costs and scope.
The general payment limitation applies to "a person or legal entity (except a qualified pass-through entity)" as defined in section 1001(a) of the Food Security Act of 1985.
Section 2(a), new Section 197(d)(1)(A)
Why it matters:It is standard legislative drafting to refer to existing definitions, but it means the specific impact on certain business structures isn't immediately obvious to a reader unfamiliar with the referenced statute.
Case for: Proponents would argue that excluding qualified pass-through entities from the general payment limit prevents double-counting or undue restriction on complex farming operations structured as partnerships or S-corps, ensuring that the aid reaches the ultimate producers.
Case against: Opponents might argue that this exemption could create loopholes, allowing larger or more complex operations to circumvent payment caps through their organizational structure, potentially concentrating benefits among fewer, larger entities.
Estimated impact: Could allow certain large or complex specialty crop operations to receive higher aggregate payments than individual producers or simpler entities.