Expanding Market Access Act
Introduced June 2, 2026 · Last action June 2, 2026
Plain English Summary
This bill expands U.S. agricultural export promotion by increasing funding for the Foreign Market Development Cooperator Program from $255 million (FY 2026) to $533 million annually (FY 2028–2031), and adds a new technical assistance program to help foreign markets build cold chain and port infrastructure so U.S. farm products don't spoil in transit. It also requires the U.S. Department of Agriculture to publish a biennial report on barriers facing U.S. specialty crop exports and repeals two prior agricultural trade provisions.
Who benefits
U.S. agricultural exporters and specialty crop producers (fruit, vegetable, and other crop farmers and agribusinesses); U.S. agricultural trade organizations and nonprofit supply chain infrastructure firms hired to conduct needs assessments and training in foreign markets; foreign importers of U.S. agricultural products who gain improved infrastructure; U.S. commodity interests dependent on export market access.
Who pays / loses
The Commodity Credit Corporation and federal taxpayers bear the cost of the $255–$533 million annual funding increase through existing CCC resources. Foreign governments and producers of competing agricultural products in foreign markets lose pricing power or market share as U.S. exports become more competitive due to improved infrastructure.
Fiscal note: $255 million (FY 2026), $500 million (FY 2027), $533 million annually (FY 2028–2031) drawn from the Commodity Credit Corporation; additional $1.5 million (FY 2027) and $5 million annually (FY 2028+) for infrastructure technical assistance.
Funding & Lobbying Interests
Agricultural exporters, specialty crop industry associations (including fruit and vegetable producers), agricultural trading companies, and agribusiness firms benefit from expanded export promotion. Supply chain and infrastructure consulting firms gain contracts for foreign market assessments. No sponsor finance data provided; bill sponsor Adam Schiff (D-CA) represents a district with significant agricultural and food processing interests, but specific donor information was not included in the provided materials. The constituencies backing expanded farm export programs typically include the American Farm Bureau, American Soybean Association, U.S. Grains Council, and fruit/vegetable exporters.
Political Impact
Affected Groups
U.S. agricultural exporters and farmers producing specialty crops (fruit, vegetables, tree nuts, etc.), particularly those targeting emerging or developing foreign markets where infrastructure is a current barrier. Foreign agricultural producers and agribusinesses that compete with improved U.S. exports. Consumers in foreign markets who may benefit from lower prices or better-preserved imported U.S. agricultural products as cold chain infrastructure improves.
Political Subtext
Proponents argue this bill removes real barriers to U.S. farm exports—poor infrastructure in foreign markets causes spoilage and waste—and that improving foreign supply chains expands U.S. market share without protectionism, directly supporting rural American farmers. Critics might argue the bill represents an indirect subsidy to large agribusinesses and commodity traders under the guise of market expansion, and that the repealed provisions (Section 718 of the 1999 Act and Section 10602 of Public Law 119-21) may have contained protections or restrictions now being removed. The biennial reporting requirement frames this as a transparency and accountability measure, signaling intent to monitor and challenge foreign trade barriers through WTO and Section 301 mechanisms. Non-partisan evidence on agricultural export promotion programs shows they can expand sales but effectiveness varies by market maturity, commodity type, and baseline infrastructure conditions; no broad CBO assessment of this specific bill was cited.
Real-World Stakes
If passed, U.S. specialty crop exporters gain a tool to reduce post-harvest losses in developing markets—a real constraint in sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia, and Latin America where cold chain capacity is limited. The technical assistance program mirrors similar USDA export development activities (Market Access Program, Foreign Market Development Program) that have operated since the 1990s with documented success in specific markets but mixed results overall. The funding increase would roughly double annual spending on these programs. The biennial reporting requirement creates a public record of trade barriers and U.S. government responses, potentially feeding into Section 301 investigations or WTO disputes. Repealing Section 718 and Section 10602 removes prior statutory constraints; without the bill text of those provisions, the precise impact is unclear, but they may have limited authority or carved out protections now being removed. In practice, similar market access bills have benefited large exporters (grain, fruit, dairy) more than small-scale producers lacking capacity to participate in government-sponsored market development programs.
Sponsor
Co-sponsors (1)
DSen. Slotkin, Elissa [D-MI]
Vote Record
No recorded votes.
Campaign Finance — Primary Sponsor
Top contributing industries
Other$79,876.4
Finance$21,400
Construction$4,166
Healthcare$3,848
Law$3,160
501(c)(4) disclosure: Contributions from 501(c)(4) "dark money" organizations are not required to be publicly disclosed and are not reflected in the figures above. Data sourced from FEC public disclosure filings.
Community Discussion
Share this bill
Sign in to join the discussion.
No comments yet. Be the first.