A Republican bill with 1 Democratic cosponsor · See the cosponsor
Last activity — Read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
This bill, known as the Making Access To Cleanup Happen Act of 2025'' or the MATCH Act of 2025'', seeks to amend the Agricultural Credit Act of 1978. It focuses on the preagreement costs of emergency watershed protection measures. The legislation directs the Secretary to identify specific protection measures that costs might be incurred for before an agreement is signed. It also requires the development of a procedure for sponsors to request additional measures for specific natural disasters. Finally, it establishes how those preagreement costs are treated if an agreement is eventually reached.
Yes· 3 of 5
- Scored +4
Does this improve help for people hit by a disaster?
The bill streamlines the process for sponsors to request and receive credit for emergency watershed protection measures during disasters.
- Scored +3
Would Native Americans be better off under this?
The bill explicitly includes Indian Tribes as sponsors for emergency watershed protection measures.
- Scored +3
Does this better protect air, water and wildlife?
The bill facilitates emergency watershed protection measures which can help protect environments from natural disasters.
The opposite
No question was scored the opposite.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
- Credit for initial costs: If a sponsor and the Secretary enter into an agreement, the Secretary will consider any applicable preagreement costs as part of the sponsor's required contribution toward the project cost (Section 2, paragraph 3).
Potential Negative Impacts for People
-
Financial risk for sponsors: A sponsor that undertakes emergency watershed protection measures before an agreement is signed must assume the risk of incurring those costs (Section 2, paragraph 4).
-
No guarantee of agreement: The Secretary is not required to enter into an agreement with a sponsor, regardless of the costs incurred (Section 2, paragraph 5).
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would Native Americans be better off under this? — The bill explicitly includes Indian Tribes as sponsors for emergency watershed protection measures. Would farmers be better off under this? — Watershed protection measures are highly relevant to agricultural productivity and land management. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — Rural residents often rely on watershed stability for their livelihoods and environmental safety.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this improve help for people hit by a disaster? — The bill streamlines the process for sponsors to request and receive credit for emergency watershed protection measures during disasters. Does this better protect air, water and wildlife? — The bill facilitates emergency watershed protection measures which can help protect environments from natural disasters.
- 3/25/2025
- Read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- Introduced in Senate
4 bills Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.
Michael BennetDemocrat · Colorado