A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude from gross income capital gains from the sale of certain farmland property which are reinvested in individual retirement plans.
Download PDFSponsored by
Sen. McConnell, Mitch [R-KY]
ID: M000355
Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law
Track this bill's progress through the legislative process
Latest Action
Invalid Date
Introduced
đź“Ť Current Status
Next: The bill will be reviewed by relevant committees who will debate, amend, and vote on it.
Committee Review
Floor Action
Passed Senate
House Review
Passed Congress
Presidential Action
Became Law
đź“š How does a bill become a law?
1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.
2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.
3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.
4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.
5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.
6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.
7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!
Bill Summary
Another masterpiece of legislative lunacy, courtesy of our esteemed Senator McConnell. Let's dissect this monstrosity and expose the real disease beneath the surface.
**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The bill claims to exclude capital gains from the sale of certain farmland property if reinvested in individual retirement plans. Sounds noble, right? Wrong. This is just a cleverly crafted Trojan horse designed to benefit wealthy farmers and their cronies at the expense of the general public.
**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends the Internal Revenue Code to create a new section (139J) that allows taxpayers to exclude capital gains from the sale of qualified farmland property if they reinvest the proceeds in an individual retirement plan within 60 days. The "qualified farmer" must be actively engaged in farming and agree to use the property for farming purposes for at least 10 years.
**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The primary beneficiaries are wealthy farmers, agricultural corporations, and their lobbyists who will reap the benefits of reduced tax liabilities. The general public, on the other hand, will foot the bill through lost revenue and potential environmental degradation due to increased farmland development.
**Potential Impact & Implications:**
1. **Tax Revenue Loss:** This bill is a blatant attempt to reduce tax revenues by creating a new loophole for wealthy farmers. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that this provision will cost taxpayers millions of dollars in lost revenue over the next decade. 2. **Environmental Concerns:** By incentivizing farmland development, this bill may lead to increased deforestation, water pollution, and habitat destruction. The environmental impact assessment is conveniently absent from the bill's text. 3. **Increased Inequality:** This legislation will further exacerbate income inequality by providing a tax break to those who need it least – wealthy farmers and agricultural corporations.
Diagnosis: This bill suffers from a severe case of "Special Interest-itis," a disease characterized by an excessive focus on benefiting powerful lobbies at the expense of the general public. The symptoms include:
* A blatant disregard for environmental concerns * A lack of transparency in the legislative process * A clear intent to reduce tax revenues and increase inequality
Treatment: This bill needs a strong dose of reality, transparency, and accountability. It's time to put the interests of the American people above those of special interest groups and their lobbyists.
Prognosis: Unfortunately, given the current state of our political system, this bill will likely pass with minimal scrutiny, further enriching the wealthy at the expense of the general public.
Related Topics
đź’° Campaign Finance Network
Sen. McConnell, Mitch [R-KY]
Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle
No PAC contributions found
No organization contributions found
No committee contributions found
Donor Network - Sen. McConnell, Mitch [R-KY]
Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.
Showing 19 nodes and 20 connections
Total contributions: $92,400
Top Donors - Sen. McConnell, Mitch [R-KY]
Showing top 18 donors by contribution amount
Project 2025 Policy Matches
This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document. Higher similarity scores indicate stronger thematic connections.
Introduction
— 297 — Department of Agriculture losses, which is another way of saying minor dips in expected revenue. This is hardly consistent with the concept of providing a safety net to help farmers when they fall on hard times. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO), in one of its options to reduce the federal deficit, has once again identified repealing all Title I farm programs, including ARC, PLC, and the federal sugar program.46 l Stop paying farmers twice for price and revenue losses during the same year. Farmers can receive support from the ARC or PLC programs and the federal crop insurance program to cover price declines and revenue shortfalls during the same year. Congress should prohibit this duplication by prohibiting farmers from receiving an ARC or PLC payment the same year they receive a crop insurance indemnity. l Reduce the premium subsidy rate for crop insurance. On average, taxpayers cover about 60 percent47 of the premium cost for policies purchased in the federal crop insurance program. One of the most widely supported and bipartisan policy reforms is to reduce the premium subsidy that taxpayers are forced to pay.48 At a minimum, taxpayers should not pay more than 50 percent of the premium. After all, taxpayers should not have to pay more than the farmers who benefit from the crop insurance policies. CBO has found that reducing the premium subsidy to 47 percent would save $8.1 billion over 10 years and have little impact on crop insurance participation or on the number of covered acres.49 In that analysis, there would be a reduction in insured acres of just one-half of 1 percent, and only 1.5 percent of acres would have lower coverage levels. 50 This reform is basically all benefit with little to no cost. In its recently released report identifying options to reduce the federal deficit, CBO found that reducing the premium subsidy to 40 percent would save $20.9 billion over 10 years.51 Beyond these legislative reforms, the next Administration should: l Communicate to Congress the necessity of transparency and a genuine reform process. The White House and the USDA should make it very clear that the farm bill process, including reform of farm subsidies, must be con- ducted through an open process with time for mark-up and the opportunity for changes to be made outside the Agriculture Committee process. The farm bill too often is developed behind closed doors and without any chance for real reform. The White House, given the power of the bully pulpit, — 298 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise must demand a genuine reform process and express unwavering support for a USDA that shapes a safety net that considers the interests of farmers, while also remembering the interests of taxpayers and consumers. Any safety net for farmers should be a true safety net—one that helps farmers when they have experienced serious unforeseen losses (preferably when there has been a disaster or unforeseen natural event causing damage) and that exists to help them in unusual situations. l Separate the agricultural provisions of the farm bill from the nutrition provisions. To have genuine reform and proper consideration of the issues, agricultural programs should be considered in separate legislation distinct from food stamps and the nutrition part of the farm bill, and reauthorization of such programs should be fixed on different timelines to ensure this separation. Agricultural and nutritional programs, which are distinct from each other, have been combined together for political reasons, something which is readily admitted by proponents of this logrolling. When it comes to American agriculture and welfare programs, they deserve sound policy debates, not political tactics at the expense of thoughtful discourse. Move the Work of the Food and Nutrition Service. The USDA implements many means-tested federal support programs, including the largest food assis- tance program, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, also known as food stamps), and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) Food Program. The Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) oversees these programs and other food and nutrition programs, including the Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion,52 which handles the USDA’s work on the “Dietary Guidelines for Americans” (Dietary Guidelines).53 Food nutrition programs include: SNAP; WIC; the National School Lunch Program (NSLP); the School Breakfast Program (SBP); the Child and Adult Care Food Program; the Nutrition Program for the Elderly; Nutrition Service Incentives; the Summer Food Service Program; the Commodity Supplemental Food Program; the Temporary Emergency Food Program; the Farmer’s Market Nutrition Program; and the Spe- cial Milk Program. The next Administration should: l Move the USDA food and nutrition programs to the Department of Health and Human Services. There are more than 89 current means- tested welfare programs, and total means-tested spending has been estimated to surpass $1.2 trillion between federal and state resources.54 Because means-tested federal programs are siloed and administered in separate agencies, the effectiveness and size of the welfare state remains
Introduction
— 305 — Department of Agriculture and to require instead that each farm (as a function of eligibility) must have created a general best practices plan. Such a plan could be approved by the local county Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD). The local SWCD commissioners are elected by their peers in each respective county and are better suited than the NRCS to provide guidance for farm operations in their respective jurisdictions. At a minimum, a new Administration should support legislation to divest more power to the states (and possibly local SWCDs) regarding erodible land and wetlands conservation.98 l Reform easements. The new Administration should, to the extent authorized by law, limit the use of permanent easements and collaborate with lawmakers to prohibit the USDA from creating new permanent easements.99 Other Major Issues and Specific Recommendations. Although the following issues have not been listed as “priority,” these issues are still extremely important, and the next Administration should address them. Only meat and poultry from federally inspected facilities can be sold in inter- state commerce.100 Even meat and poultry from USDA-approved state-inspected facilities may only be sold in intrastate commerce, with limited exceptions.101 This is despite the fact that states with USDA-approved inspection programs must meet and enforce requirements that are “at least equal to” those imposed under the Federal Meat and Poultry Products Inspection Acts and the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act of 1978.102 This is an unnecessary regulatory barrier that makes it difficult to get meat and poultry into interstate commerce to create more options for consumers and farmers. Legislation entitled the New Mar- kets for State-Inspected Meat and Poultry Act of 2021 would help to remove this obstacle.103 The next Administration should: l Promote legislation that would allow state-inspected meat to be sold in interstate commerce. These barriers to the sale of meat and poultry from USDA-approved state-inspected facilities should be removed. Eliminate or Reform Marketing Orders and Checkoff Programs. Mar- keting orders and checkoff programs for agricultural commodities are similar in many ways. They both allow private actors within an industry to collaborate with the federal government to compel other competitors within an industry to fund the respective marketing order or checkoff program. There are currently 22 checkoff — 306 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise programs,104 and they focus on research and promotion of commodities such as beef and eggs. Marketing orders cover research and promotion, but also cover issues such as quality regulations and volume controls. The latter issue, volume controls, is a means to restrict supply, which drives up prices for consumers. Fortunately, there are few active volume controls.105 Marketing orders and checkoff programs are some of the most egregious pro- grams run by the USDA. They are, in effect, a tax—a means to compel speech—and government-blessed cartels. Instead of getting private cooperation, they are tools for industry actors to work with government to force cooperation. The next Administration should: l Reduce the number and scope of marketing orders and checkoff programs. The USDA should reject any new requests for marketing orders and checkoff programs to the extent authorized by law and eliminate existing programs when possible. While the programs work differently, there are often petition processes and other ways that make it difficult for affected parties to get rid of the marketing orders and checkoff programs,106 and the USDA itself may not even be required to honor requests to terminate a program.107 The USDA should make the process easier. Further, the USDA should reject any effort to bring back volume controls to limit supplies of commodities. l Work with Congress to eliminate marketing orders and checkoff programs. These programs should be eliminated, and if industry actors want to collaborate, they should do so through private means, not using the government to compel cooperation. l Promote legislation that would require regular votes. There should be regular voting for parties subject to checkoff programs and marketing orders. For example, the voting should occur at least every five years, to determine whether a marketing order or checkoff program should continue. The USDA should be required to honor the results of such a vote. Through regular voting, parties can demonstrate their support for a marketing order or checkoff program and ensure that those administering them will be held accountable. Focus on Trade Policy, Not Trade Promotion. The USDA’s Foreign Agri- cultural Service (FAS) covers numerous issues, including “trade policy,” which is a reference to removing trade barriers, among other things, to ensure an envi- ronment conducive to trade.108 It also covers trade promotion.109 This includes programs like the Market Access Program110 that subsidizes trade associations,
Introduction
— 305 — Department of Agriculture and to require instead that each farm (as a function of eligibility) must have created a general best practices plan. Such a plan could be approved by the local county Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD). The local SWCD commissioners are elected by their peers in each respective county and are better suited than the NRCS to provide guidance for farm operations in their respective jurisdictions. At a minimum, a new Administration should support legislation to divest more power to the states (and possibly local SWCDs) regarding erodible land and wetlands conservation.98 l Reform easements. The new Administration should, to the extent authorized by law, limit the use of permanent easements and collaborate with lawmakers to prohibit the USDA from creating new permanent easements.99 Other Major Issues and Specific Recommendations. Although the following issues have not been listed as “priority,” these issues are still extremely important, and the next Administration should address them. Only meat and poultry from federally inspected facilities can be sold in inter- state commerce.100 Even meat and poultry from USDA-approved state-inspected facilities may only be sold in intrastate commerce, with limited exceptions.101 This is despite the fact that states with USDA-approved inspection programs must meet and enforce requirements that are “at least equal to” those imposed under the Federal Meat and Poultry Products Inspection Acts and the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act of 1978.102 This is an unnecessary regulatory barrier that makes it difficult to get meat and poultry into interstate commerce to create more options for consumers and farmers. Legislation entitled the New Mar- kets for State-Inspected Meat and Poultry Act of 2021 would help to remove this obstacle.103 The next Administration should: l Promote legislation that would allow state-inspected meat to be sold in interstate commerce. These barriers to the sale of meat and poultry from USDA-approved state-inspected facilities should be removed. Eliminate or Reform Marketing Orders and Checkoff Programs. Mar- keting orders and checkoff programs for agricultural commodities are similar in many ways. They both allow private actors within an industry to collaborate with the federal government to compel other competitors within an industry to fund the respective marketing order or checkoff program. There are currently 22 checkoff
Showing 3 of 5 policy matches
About These Correlations
Policy matches are calculated using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text. A score of 60% or higher indicates meaningful thematic overlap. This does not imply direct causation or intent, but highlights areas where legislation aligns with Project 2025 policy objectives.