Referred to the Subcommittee on Conservation, Research, and Biotechnology.
This bill amends section 1241(f) of the Food Security Act of 1985. It preserves authority for the Secretary of Agriculture to establish sub-accounts for each Subtitle D conservation program to accept non‑Federal contributions, adjusts language about how covered program funds are deposited into those sub‑accounts, and strikes paragraphs (3) through (10) of that subsection, removing several other statutory provisions governing acceptance and use of contributions.
Progressives emphasize loss of oversight and transparency risks.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly targeted substantive statutory amendment that precisely identifies which provisions to remove and provides specific text edits, but it lacks fiscal acknowledgement, transitional guidance, and accountability or mitigation measures that would commonly accompany changes to program authorities.
This bill amends section 1241(f) of the Food Security Act of 1985.
It preserves authority for the Secretary of Agriculture to establish sub-accounts for each Subtitle D conservation program to accept non‑Federal contributions, adjusts language about how covered program funds are deposited into those sub‑accounts, and strikes paragraphs (3) through (10) of that subsection, removing several other statutory provisions governing acceptance and use of contributions.
Low fiscal impact and narrow scope help prospects, but lack of compromise features and potential oversight concerns reduce likelihood.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly targeted substantive statutory amendment that precisely identifies which provisions to remove and provides specific text edits, but it lacks fiscal acknowledgement, transitional guidance, and accountability or mitigation measures that would commonly accompany changes to program authorities.
Progressives emphasize loss of oversight and transparency risks.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives emphasize loss of oversight and transparency risks.
Skeptical.
While the bill keeps authority to accept non‑Federal funds, removing multiple statutory paragraphs raises concerns about lost safeguards, oversight, and private influence over conservation programs.
Support would depend on restored transparency and enforceable protections.
Cautiously receptive.
The bill simplifies statutory language and retains contribution authority, which could leverage private funds efficiently, but removal of several paragraphs creates uncertainty about oversight and legal clarity.
Generally supportive.
The bill preserves the Secretary’s ability to accept private funds while removing numerous statutory constraints, which aligns with goals to reduce federal red tape and enable private-public resource pairing.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Low fiscal impact and narrow scope help prospects, but lack of compromise features and potential oversight concerns reduce likelihood.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives emphasize loss of oversight and transparency risks.
Low fiscal impact and narrow scope help prospects, but lack of compromise features and potential oversight concerns reduce likelihood.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly targeted substantive statutory amendment that precisely identifies which provisions to remove and provides specific text edits, but it lacks fiscal ackn…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.