Read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
The bill amends Section 1242 of the Food Security Act of 1985 to authorize and fund farmer-to-farmer networks and related technical assistance. It creates a definition for "farmer-to-farmer network," allows the Secretary to enter cooperative agreements with eligible entities, prioritizes underserved and high-poverty-area producers, and permits subawards (including to individuals).
Left emphasizes equity, capacity, and conservation gains
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill creates a concrete statutory authorization to expand farmer-to-farmer technical assistance by adding program authority, eligibility categories, provider responsibilities, subaward rules, prioritization, and reporting obligations into the Food Security Act of 1985.
The bill amends Section 1242 of the Food Security Act of 1985 to authorize and fund farmer-to-farmer networks and related technical assistance.
It creates a definition for "farmer-to-farmer network," allows the Secretary to enter cooperative agreements with eligible entities, prioritizes underserved and high-poverty-area producers, and permits subawards (including to individuals).
Recipients must perform specified activities, provide language assistance when practicable, report annually, and the Secretary must report outcomes within four years.
Modest, technical expansion with low controversy increases chances, but reliance on discretionary appropriations and typical bottlenecks mean moderate overall likelihood.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill creates a concrete statutory authorization to expand farmer-to-farmer technical assistance by adding program authority, eligibility categories, provider responsibilities, subaward rules, prioritization, and reporting obligations into the Food Security Act of 1985. It integrates with existing law and assigns responsible entities, but it leaves substantial operational detail to agency rulemaking and appropriations.
Left emphasizes equity, capacity, and conservation gains
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Left emphasizes equity, capacity, and conservation gains
Likely supportive because the bill expands peer-led technical assistance and prioritizes historically underserved farmers.
It emphasizes equitable access, language assistance, capacity building, and compensating participants, aligning with goals to boost conservation adoption and farm resilience.
Generally favorable but cautious.
The bill is pragmatic in leveraging peer networks and existing NRCS appropriations, yet it leaves funding levels, eligibility definitions, and subaward standards to agency discretion, raising implementation and cost questions.
Skeptical overall.
While peer-to-peer assistance and local partners could be positive, concerns center on expanded federal involvement, open-ended funding, payments to individuals, and potential mission creep into policy advocacy.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Modest, technical expansion with low controversy increases chances, but reliance on discretionary appropriations and typical bottlenecks mean moderate overall likelihood.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Left emphasizes equity, capacity, and conservation gains
Modest, technical expansion with low controversy increases chances, but reliance on discretionary appropriations and typical bottlenecks me…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill creates a concrete statutory authorization to expand farmer-to-farmer technical assistance by adding program authority, eligibility categories, provider responsibilit…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.