Read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
This bill amends the Acer Access and Development Program in the Agricultural Act of 2014 to require the Secretary of Agriculture to solicit maple industry stakeholder input before requests for grant applications and to consider that input when awarding grants. It also redesignates subsections and updates the program authorization date from 2023 to 2030, effectively extending the program.
Fiscal concern over program extension and ongoing spending
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly focused administrative amendment that clearly integrates into the existing statute and establishes a specific timing mechanism for stakeholder consultation prior to grant solicitations, while also extending the program's statutory date.
This bill amends the Acer Access and Development Program in the Agricultural Act of 2014 to require the Secretary of Agriculture to solicit maple industry stakeholder input before requests for grant applications and to consider that input when awarding grants.
It also redesignates subsections and updates the program authorization date from 2023 to 2030, effectively extending the program.
The consultation must begin for the first request at least one year after enactment and the solicitation must occur no later than six months before each request for applications.
Content is narrow and noncontroversial, so likely to advance, but many small technical bills fail to gain floor time absent packaging.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly focused administrative amendment that clearly integrates into the existing statute and establishes a specific timing mechanism for stakeholder consultation prior to grant solicitations, while also extending the program's statutory date.
Fiscal concern over program extension and ongoing spending
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Fiscal concern over program extension and ongoing spending
Likely supportive overall because the bill amplifies producer voices and extends a program supporting small agricultural producers.
They will want explicit inclusion of environmental, equity, and small-/BIPOC-producer priorities, and may view the consultation requirement as positive but limited without stronger safeguards.
Likely favors the bill as a modest, pragmatic improvement to grantmaking process and program continuity.
Sees it as low-cost, targeted, and administratively reasonable, while wanting transparency on solicitation and reporting.
Mildly supportive if the change remains limited and fiscally modest, valuing support to domestic maple producers.
Skeptical of extending federal authorization without clear fiscal limits and wary of federal program growth.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Content is narrow and noncontroversial, so likely to advance, but many small technical bills fail to gain floor time absent packaging.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Fiscal concern over program extension and ongoing spending
Content is narrow and noncontroversial, so likely to advance, but many small technical bills fail to gain floor time absent packaging.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly focused administrative amendment that clearly integrates into the existing statute and establishes a specific timing mechanism for stakeholder consultat…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.