The bill amends the Animal Health Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 8306) to require the Secretary of Agriculture to pay owners of poultry growing or laying facilities for production they were prohibited from conducting because their facility was located in an APHIS-designated control area. It defines “poultry” broadly to include domesticated birds raised for eggs or meat (chickens, turkeys, ostriches, emus, rheas, cassowaries, waterfowl, and game birds) while expressly excluding doves and pigeons.
Payment equals the facility’s average income from its five most recent flocks multiplied by the number of flocks lost while the control area was in effect, reduced by any state or other compensation the owner already received. Claims must be paid within 60 days of application, and the Secretary’s determination on amounts is final and not subject to judicial review.
The bill bars duplicate payments for facilities that already received indemnity for destroyed animals under the existing statute for the same control-area period.
At a Glance
What It Does
Establishes a federal indemnity for owners of poultry growing or laying facilities located inside APHIS control areas who were prohibited from growing or laying flocks; payment equals the facility’s 5-flock average income times the number of lost flocks, minus other compensation.
Who It Affects
Owners/operators of poultry growing and laying facilities (including producers of chickens, turkeys, ostriches/ratites, waterfowl and game birds), APHIS/USDA as the paying agency, and State compensation programs because federal payments are reduced by state/other payments.
Why It Matters
Shifts direct outbreak-related production-loss risk onto the federal government for facilities inside control areas, creates a quick-pay entitlement with limited review, and introduces a simple—but administratively consequential—formula for valuing lost production.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill adds a new subsection to the Animal Health Protection Act that specifically compensates owners of poultry growing or laying facilities when APHIS designates a control area that prevents them from producing one or more flocks. Rather than reimbursing for birds destroyed or treatment costs, this provision targets the economic loss from being prohibited from growing or laying flocks because of location inside a control area.
It sets a clear valuation method: calculate the facility’s average income from its five most recent flocks, then multiply that per-flock average by the number of flocks the owner could not raise during the control-area period. That number is subject to a cap that subtracts any payments the owner already received from States or other sources for those same flocks, preventing double recovery.
The bill also cross-references existing exceptions in subsection (d)(3) and prohibits an owner from taking both this payment and the destroyed-animals indemnity for the same facility and time period.Operationally, the statute requires owners to request compensation and directs USDA to pay within 60 days of a request. It makes the Secretary’s determination of the payable amount final and non-reviewable in court, which speeds closure but limits legal recourse.
The bill defines key terms: APHIS control areas (as determined by the agency) and a broad definition of poultry that includes several ratites and game birds while carving out doves and pigeons, which shapes who qualifies.Taken together, the bill creates a narrowly focused, administratively simple entitlement for lost production tied to recent facility earnings. The simplicity favors rapid payments, but it also pushes verification and program integrity onto APHIS and sets up interactions with State programs and other indemnities that will require clear administrative rules.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill bases each payment on the facility’s average income from its five most recent flocks multiplied by the number of flocks lost while the control area was in effect.
USDA must pay a validated claim within 60 days after the owner submits the request for compensation.
Federal payment is reduced by any compensation the owner already received from a State or other source for those same lost flocks.
An owner who already received payment under the statute’s destroyed-animals provision for a facility in the same control area and period is ineligible for this production-loss payment for that facility/time.
The Secretary’s determination of the amount payable is final and not subject to judicial review or review by other federal officers, except by the Secretary or designee.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Gives the act the working name “Healthy Poultry Assistance and Indemnification Act of 2025.” This is purely identifiying language but signals the bill’s focus and will appear in statutory compilations under that title.
Add new subsection (e): compensation for production lost inside control areas
Creates subsection (e), which authorizes compensation specifically for owners of poultry growing or laying facilities when APHIS places their facility inside a control area and they are barred from producing flocks. The provision distinguishes this payment from indemnity for destroyed animals and limits duplicative payments. Practically, the new subsection converts foregone production into a recoverable federal entitlement using a fixed formula based on recent facility income.
Definitions: control area and poultry
Defines ‘control area’ as an APHIS-determined control area—leaving the geographic and epidemiological criteria to agency practice—and defines ‘poultry’ broadly to capture common commercial species plus ratites, waterfowl and game birds, while excluding doves and pigeons. The explicit list shapes eligibility and brings some nontraditional producers (e.g., ostrich, emu) within the program, which matters for outreach and claims processing.
Compensation calculation, cap, and timing
Specifies the payment formula (5-flock income average × number of lost flocks) and caps total federal payment by subtracting any state or other-source payments for the same flocks. It requires payment within 60 days after a claim is filed—creating an operational deadline—and makes the Secretary’s dollar determination final and non-reviewable, a provision that shortens dispute timelines but concentrates responsibility for accuracy and verification within the agency.
Exceptions and anti-duplication with destroyed-animal indemnity
Applies the existing exceptions from subsection (d)(3) to this new subsection and bars payments when an owner already received destroyed-animal compensation for the same facility and timeframe. The cross-reference preserves prior limitations (such as potential exclusions for willful misconduct or other statutory disqualifications) and prevents double recovery, but it also requires the agency to coordinate records across indemnity streams.
Clarify compensation heading for destroyed animals
Edits the heading of subsection (d) to read ‘Compensation for Destroyed Animals,’ a housekeeping change that clarifies the statute now contains separate provisions: one for destroyed animals and a new one for production losses caused by control-area prohibitions.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Agriculture across all five countries.
Explore Agriculture in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Owners of poultry growing or laying facilities: The bill gives them a statutory entitlement to recover lost production income when an APHIS control area prevents them from growing or laying flocks.
- Specialty and ratite producers (ostrich, emu, rhea) and game-bird operations: The definition of poultry explicitly includes several nontraditional commercial species, bringing these smaller or niche producers into the compensation framework.
- Contract growers and independent farm operators with documented recent flocks: Facilities with stable, verifiable income streams from recent flocks can translate those records directly into a payment under the statutory formula.
Who Bears the Cost
- Federal government (USDA/Department of Agriculture): USDA (through APHIS) becomes the payor of last resort, increasing federal outlays and requiring appropriation or reallocation of funds to cover claims.
- APHIS operational units and USDA administrators: APHIS must verify claims, calculate five-flock averages, reconcile state payments, and meet 60-day payment deadlines, increasing administrative workload and requiring new procedures and staff time.
- State compensation programs and other payors: Because federal payments are reduced by state or other compensation, States may see their payments effectively subordinated or require tighter coordination and record-sharing, complicating state program administration.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is between rapid, administrable relief for producers shut down by control-area orders and the risk of inaccurate or inequitable payments when a one-size-fits-most formula and limited review replace individualized adjudication; quick payments reduce producer hardship but shift verification burden and error risk onto the agency and the federal fisc.
The bill prioritizes a simple, fast-to-apply payment formula, but that simplicity creates several implementation challenges. Using an average of the five most recent flocks favors facilities with traceable, consistent revenue histories, and it raises questions about facilities that operate on irregular production cycles or under integrator contracts where the farm owner’s ‘income’ is not straightforward.
APHIS will need clear rules on what documentation counts as ‘average income’ (gross receipts, net income, contract payments, or another metric) and how to treat new facilities with fewer than five prior flocks.
The statutory bar on judicial review for the Secretary’s payment determination speeds finality but concentrates risk in the agency: owners who believe USDA made an arithmetic or factual error will have limited federal-court recourse. That finality intersects awkwardly with the cross-reference to subsection (d)(3) exceptions and the anti-duplication rule; USDA must reconcile destroyed-animal indemnity records, state payments, and this program’s claims to prevent under- or over-payments.
Finally, the 60-day payment deadline is administratively aggressive. Without additional appropriations, APHIS may face trade-offs between timely payments and thorough vetting, which raises program-integrity and fiscal-risk questions.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.