The bill
EFFECTIVE Food Procurement Act
S. 3471, 119th Congress — read as touching Crop Producers.
Sponsored by
Sen. Markey, Edward J. [D-MA]
ID: M000133
Follow the money
The bill
S. 3471, 119th Congress — read as touching Crop Producers.
The sponsor
Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.
The money
22 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.
The alignment
This bill's text tracks the "Introduction" section, p. 326-328 of the Mandate for Leadership.
Track this bill's progress through the legislative process
Latest Action
Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship. Hearings held.
January 13, 2026
📍 Current Status
Next: The bill moves to the floor for full chamber debate and voting.
1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.
2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.
3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.
4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.
5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.
6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.
7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!
Another masterpiece of legislative theater, courtesy of the esteemed members of Congress. Let's dissect this monstrosity and uncover the real disease beneath the surface.
**Main Purpose & Objectives**
The EFFECTIVE Food Procurement Act (because who doesn't love a good acronym?) claims to improve purchasing practices by the Department of Agriculture, promoting a more just, healthy, and sustainable food system. How quaint. In reality, this bill is a Trojan horse for special interest groups, masquerading as a champion of social justice and environmental sustainability.
**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**
The bill introduces a plethora of new definitions, certifications, and programs, all designed to create a Byzantine bureaucracy that will inevitably benefit the well-connected and well-funded. Key provisions include:
* The creation of a certification program for "covered producers" (beginning farmers, veterans, socially disadvantaged farmers, etc.), which will undoubtedly become a cash cow for consultants and auditors. * The expansion of purchasing authorities to include various sections of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act, because who doesn't love a good game of legislative shell-shuffling? * The introduction of a "policy to limit deforestation," which sounds noble but is likely a thinly veiled attempt to enrich certain stakeholders in the forestry industry.
**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**
The usual suspects will benefit from this bill:
* Large agricultural corporations, who will exploit the new certification programs and purchasing authorities to further consolidate their market share. * Special interest groups, such as environmental organizations and social justice advocates, who will use this bill as a Trojan horse to advance their agendas. * Lobbyists and consultants, who will feast on the complexity and bureaucratic red tape created by this legislation.
**Potential Impact & Implications**
This bill will have several predictable consequences:
* Increased costs for taxpayers, as the Department of Agriculture will need to hire more bureaucrats to administer these new programs. * Further consolidation of the agricultural industry, as smaller farmers and producers are squeezed out by the complexity and expense of compliance. * A surge in "greenwashing" and "social justice-washing," as companies exploit the bill's provisions to burnish their public images without actually changing their practices.
In conclusion, this bill is a classic case of legislative myopia, where politicians prioritize short-term gains for special interest groups over long-term consequences for the general public. It's a disease that will only spread if left unchecked.
Sen. Markey, Edward J. [D-MA]
Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle
No PAC contributions found
No committee contributions found
This bill has 4 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.
ID: B001277
Top Contributors
10
ID: S001150
Top Contributors
10
ID: W000800
Top Contributors
10
ID: P000145
Top Contributors
10
Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.
Showing 49 nodes and 34 connections (59 secondary connections hidden)
Total contributions: $108,900
Showing top 15 donors by contribution amount
Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 4 helped.
Section 4(b)(1)(A) and (2)(A) prioritize foods from covered producers, which includes small/medium-sized farms and socially disadvantaged farmers, directly benefiting crop producers who meet these criteria.
Section 4(b)(1)(A) and (2)(A) require purchasing foods produced by covered producers or sourced from covered entities, which includes small/medium-sized farms and socially disadvantaged farmers, benefiting agribusiness suppliers that work with such producers.
Section 4(b)(3)(A)-(C) require sourcing from vendors with collective bargaining agreements, worker justice certification, or labor peace agreements, directly benefiting labor unions through expanded unionized food supply chains.
Section 4(b)(2)(D) includes foods from farms participating in independent animal welfare certification programs, which could benefit meat and dairy processors that adopt such certifications to supply USDA.
This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.
— 294 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise to transforming the food system on its web site and other department-dis- seminated material, and it should expressly and regularly communicate the principles informing the objectives listed above, as well as promote these prin- ciples through legislative efforts. The USDA should also carefully review existing efforts that involve inappropriately imposing its preferred agricultural practices onto farmers. Address the Abuse of CCC Discretionary Authority. With the exception of federal crop insurance, the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) is generally the means by which agricultural-related farm bill programs are funded. The CCC is a funding mechanism, which, in simple terms, has $30 billion a year at its disposal.24 Section 5 of the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act (Charter Act)25 gives the Secretary of Agriculture broad discretionary authority to spend “unused” CCC money. However, in general, past Agriculture Secretaries have not used this power to any meaningful extent. This changed dramatically during the Trump Administration, when this discretionary authority was used to fund $28 billion in “trade aid” to farmers, consisting primarily of the Market Facilitation Program. In 2020, this authority was used for $20.5 billion in food purchases and income subsidies in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.26 At the time, critics warned that this use of the CCC, which in effect created a USDA slush fund, would lead future Administrations to abuse the CCC, such as by pushing climate-change policies.27 Predictably, this is precisely what the Biden Administration has done, using the discretionary authority to create programs out of whole cloth, arguably without statutory authority,28 for what it refers to as climate-smart agricultural practices.29 The merits of the various programs funded through the CCC discretionary authority is not the focus of this discussion. The major problem is that the Secre- tary of Agriculture is empowered to use a slush fund. Billions of dollars are being used for programs that Congress never envisioned or intended. Concern about this type of abuse is not new. In fact, from 2012 to 2017, Congress expressly limited the Agriculture Secretary’s discretionary spending authority under the Charter Act.30 And this was before the recent massive discretionary CCC spending occurred. The use of the discretionary power is a separation of powers problem, with Congress abrogating its spending power. This power is ripe for abuse—as could be expected with any slush fund—and it is a possible way to get around the farm bill process to achieve policy goals not secured during the legislative process. The next Administration should: l Refrain from using section 5 discretionary authority. The USDA can address this abuse on its own by following the lead of most Administrations and not using this discretionary authority. — 295 — Department of Agriculture l Promote legislative fixes to address abuse. Ideally, Congress would repeal the Secretary’s discretionary authority under section 5 of the Charter Act. There is no reason to maintain such authority. If Congress needs to spend money to assist farmers, it has legislative tools, including the farm bill and the annual appropriations process, to do so in a timely fashion. While not an ideal solution, Congress could also amend the Charter Act to require prior congressional approval through duly enacted legislation before any money is spent. At a minimum, Congress should amend the Charter Act to: l Limit spending to directly help farmers and ranchers address issues due to unforeseen events not already covered by existing programs and that constitute genuine emergencies that must be addressed immediately. l Prohibit the CCC from being used to assist parties beyond farmers and ranchers. l Clarify that spending is only to address problems that are temporary in nature and ensure that funding is targeted to address such problems. l Tighten the discretion within section 5 and identify ways for improper application of the Charter Act to be challenged in court. Reform Farm Subsidies. Too often, agricultural policy becomes synonymous with farm subsidy policy. This is unfortunate, because making them synony- mous fails to recognize that agricultural policy covers a wide range of issues, including issues that are outside the proper scope of the USDA, such as environ- mental regulation. However, there is no question that farm subsidies are an important issue within agricultural policy that should be addressed by any incoming Adminis- tration. There are several principles that even subsidy supporters would likely agree upon, including the need to reduce market distortions. Subsidies should not influence planting decisions, discourage proper risk management and innovation, incentivize planting on environmentally sensitive land, or create barriers to entry for new farmers. Farm subsidies can lead to these market distortions and there- fore, it would hardly be controversial to ensure that any subsidy scheme should be designed to avoid such problems. The overall goal should be to eliminate subsidy dependence. Despite what might be conventional wisdom, many farmers receive few to no subsidies,31 with most subsidies going to only a handful of commodities. According to the Congres- sional Research Service (CRS), from 2014 to 2016, 94 percent of farm program
Policy matches are calculated using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text. A score of 60% or higher indicates meaningful thematic overlap. This does not imply direct causation or intent, but highlights areas where legislation aligns with Project 2025 policy objectives.
Children and Teens’ Online Privacy Protection Act
119/s/836
A bill to amend the Act of August 9, 1955 (commonly known as the "Long-Term Leasing Act"), to authorize leases of up to 99 years for land in the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe Reservation and land held in trust for the Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah), and for other purposes.
119/s/236
Expanding the Surety Bond Program Act of 2025
119/s/2232