PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · May 18, 2023
Supporting All Producers Act or the SAP Act
This bill directs the Department of Agriculture (USDA) to solicit input from maple industry stakeholders with respect to the research and education priorities of the maple industry for the Acer Access and Development Program (Acer). Specifically, the bill amends Acer to require USDA to consider the information provided through consultation with the maple industry when making program grants.
The bill also extends the program's authorization through FY2028.
The Acer competitive grant program promotes the domestic maple syrup industry through activities associated with research and education related to maple syrup production, natural resource sustainability in the maple syrup industry, and the marketing of maple syrup and maple sap products. Acer also provides grants to encourage owners and operators of privately held land containing species of trees in the genus Acer to initiate or expand maple sugaring activities, or to voluntarily make the land publicly accessible for maple sugaring activities.
People & committees
Sen. Welch, Peter [D-VT] · D–VT
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Dec 5, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze S.1675 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine S.1675 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine S.1675 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine S.1675 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.