A Republican bill with 3 Democratic cosponsors · See all 4 cosponsors
Last activity — Read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
The "Fencing Eligibility for New Conservation Equipment Act," also known as the "FENCE Act," proposes to amend the Agricultural Credit Act of 1978. It would allow payments under the emergency conservation system to cover the updating of fencing to new or emerging technology. This is permitted as long as the update does not increase the total cost of the repair or replacement.
Yes· 3 of 7
- Scored +5
Would farmers be better off under this?
Directly benefits farmers by expanding the eligibility of emergency conservation payments to include modern fencing technology.
- Scored +4
Would people in rural areas be better off under this?
Positively impacts rural communities by supporting the modernization of agricultural infrastructure.
- Scored +3
Would business owners be better off under this?
Beneficial for farm owners who can now integrate new technologies into their conservation payments.
The opposite
No question was scored the opposite.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
- Access to Modern Technology: Section 2 allows for the updating of fencing to new or emerging technology, which could provide farmers with better equipment.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- Cost Restrictions: Section 2 specifies that updating to new technology is only allowed if it "does not increase the cost of the repair or replacement," which may limit the types of technology that can be used.
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would farmers be better off under this? — Directly benefits farmers by expanding the eligibility of emergency conservation payments to include modern fencing technology. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — Positively impacts rural communities by supporting the modernization of agricultural infrastructure. Would business owners be better off under this? — Beneficial for farm owners who can now integrate new technologies into their conservation payments.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this invest in rural communities? — Supports rural agricultural infrastructure by allowing updates to modern fencing technology. Does this improve help for people hit by a disaster? — Enhances the utility of the emergency conservation system for repairing critical farming infrastructure. Does this better protect air, water and wildlife? — May indirectly support better land management through improved conservation equipment.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this make it easier to run a small business? — Provides small-scale agricultural operations more flexibility in utilizing emergency conservation funds for modern equipment.
- 6/9/2026
- Read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
- 4 Cosponsors added.
- Introduced in Senate
Michael BennetDemocrat · Colorado
Deb FischerRepublican · Nebraska
Martin HeinrichDemocrat · New Mexico
Ben LujánDemocrat · New Mexico