Agricultural and Forestry Hauling Efficiency Act

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/hr/1487

Last Updated: October 10, 2025

Agricultural and Forestry Hauling Efficiency Act

HR. 1487, 119th Congress — read as touching Crop Producers.

The sponsor

Rep. McGuire, John [R-VA-5]

Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.

The alignment

85% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Department of Agriculture" section, p. 344-346 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR H845)

February 25, 2025

Introduced

📍 Current Status

Next: The bill will be reviewed by relevant committees who will debate, amend, and vote on it.

🏛️

Committee Review

🗳️

Floor Action

✅

Passed House

🏛️

Senate Review

🎉

Passed Congress

🖊️

Presidential Action

⚖️

Became Law

📚 How does a bill become a law?

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!

Bill Summary

Summary Style:

The Agricultural and Forestry Hauling Efficiency Act (HR 1487). A bill that, on the surface, appears to be a minor tweak to existing regulations. But, of course, that's what they all say.

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

This bill aims to increase the maximum gross vehicle weight for certain agricultural vehicles operating on the Interstate System in Virginia. The ostensible goal is to improve efficiency and reduce costs for farmers and forestry operators. How quaint.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

The bill amends Section 127 of title 23, United States Code, by adding an exception for covered agricultural vehicles in Virginia. These vehicles can now operate on the Interstate System with a maximum gross weight of 90,000 pounds, up from the current limit. This change applies specifically to vehicles transporting unprocessed agricultural crops or raw forest products.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

The primary beneficiaries of this bill are farmers and forestry operators in Virginia who will enjoy reduced transportation costs and increased efficiency. However, I'm more interested in how this affects my own interests. The increased weight limit could lead to higher demand for heavier-duty trucks, which might benefit my investments in the logistics and transportation sectors.

**Potential Impact & Implications**

From a purely economic perspective, this bill is a minor deregulatory victory. By increasing the weight limit, farmers and forestry operators can reduce their costs and increase productivity. This, in turn, could lead to higher profits for these industries, which might trickle down to my own investments. However, I'm not naive; I know that true efficiency comes from further deregulation and privatization of infrastructure.

The real implication here is the precedent this sets for future deregulatory efforts. If we can successfully increase weight limits on agricultural vehicles in Virginia, why not elsewhere? Why not across all industries? The possibilities for consolidation and profit are endless.

In conclusion, HR 1487 is a minor but intriguing development in the ongoing struggle against regulatory overreach. As a visionary entrepreneur, I see opportunities for growth and profit in this bill's wake. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have more important matters to attend to – like calculating the projected ROI on my latest venture.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (billionaire personality)

*Sigh* Alright, let's break down this bill, shall we? As I taught you in 8th grade civics class, a bill is a proposed law that must go through a series of steps before it can become an actual law. This one, HR 1487, is no exception.

**Main Purpose & Objectives** The main purpose of this bill is to amend title 23 of the United States Code to increase the maximum gross vehicle weight for certain agricultural vehicles operating on a segment of the Interstate System in Virginia. Remember when we learned about the importance of transportation infrastructure? This bill aims to address specific needs in the agricultural sector.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The bill proposes to add an exception to section 127 of title 23, allowing the Commonwealth of Virginia to permit vehicles carrying unprocessed agricultural crops or raw forest products to exceed the standard weight limit on certain segments of the Interstate System. Specifically, these vehicles would be allowed to weigh up to 90,000 pounds with a special permit.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders** This bill affects farmers, agricultural businesses, and forestry companies operating in Virginia, as well as state transportation officials responsible for issuing permits. You should have learned in middle school that laws often impact specific groups or industries; this is no exception.

**Potential Impact & Implications** If passed, this bill could increase efficiency and reduce costs for agricultural haulers in Virginia by allowing them to transport heavier loads on certain routes. However, it may also raise concerns about road safety and infrastructure wear-and-tear due to the increased weight limits. As we discussed in class, laws often involve trade-offs between competing interests.

Now, I expect you all to remember that bills like this one go through committees – in this case, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure – before being voted on by Congress. And, of course, the President would need to sign it into law or veto it. Checks and balances, anyone?

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (civics_teacher personality)

Folks, gather 'round! I've got the scoop on HR 1487, and it's a doozy. On the surface, this bill looks like your run-of-the-mill agricultural legislation, but trust me, there's more to it than meets the eye.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The stated purpose of this bill is to increase the maximum gross vehicle weight for certain agricultural vehicles operating on a segment of the Interstate System in Virginia. Sounds innocuous enough, right? But what they're not telling you is that this is just a small part of a larger agenda to control our food supply and manipulate the agricultural industry.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends Section 127 of title 23, United States Code, by adding an exception for agricultural vehicles in Virginia. This means that certain vehicles transporting unprocessed agricultural crops or raw forest products can now weigh up to 90,000 pounds, exceeding the current weight limit. But here's the thing: this provision only applies to Virginia. Why? What's so special about Virginia?

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** On the surface, it seems like this bill only affects farmers and agricultural workers in Virginia. But think about it: who really benefits from increased weight limits on agricultural vehicles? The big agro-corporations, that's who! They're the ones who'll be able to transport more goods, faster and cheaper, while small-scale farmers are left in the dust.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** Now, here's where things get interesting. With this bill, we're seeing a subtle but significant shift towards greater control over our food supply. By allowing heavier vehicles on the roads, the government is essentially paving the way for more industrial-scale farming and transportation. This means more pesticides, more GMOs, and less local, organic produce.

But that's not all – I've got my eye on Section 2, subsection (z), paragraph (1). The language used here is suspiciously vague. What exactly does "by special permit" mean? Who gets to decide which vehicles qualify for this exception? It smells like a backdoor deal to me, folks.

In conclusion, HR 1487 might seem like a minor agricultural bill on the surface, but scratch beneath the surface, and you'll find a web of intrigue and deception. Wake up, sheeple! The government's got its hands in our food supply, and we need to take back control!

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (conspiracy_uncle personality)

(Deep breath) Folks, gather 'round, we've got a doozy of a bill on our hands here. The Agricultural and Forestry Hauling Efficiency Act - sounds like a real thriller, doesn't it? (smirk)

**Main Purpose & Objectives** This bill is all about "freedom" - the freedom for agricultural vehicles to haul more weight on Virginia's interstate highways. That's right, folks, our brave farmers and foresters need to be able to transport their goods without the heavy hand of government regulation holding them back. It's a matter of national security, really. I mean, who needs safe roads when we've got crops to harvest? (wink)

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The bill amends Title 23 of the United States Code to increase the maximum gross vehicle weight for certain agricultural vehicles operating in Virginia from... well, it doesn't actually specify what the current limit is, but let's just say it's going up. To a whopping 90,000 pounds! That's right, folks, these behemoths will be rumbling down our highways, spreading freedom and prosperity wherever they go.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders** Who benefits from this bill? Why, it's the hardworking farmers and foresters of Virginia, of course! And by "hardworking," I mean the big agricultural corporations that will now be able to transport more goods at a lower cost. But hey, who doesn't love a good ol' fashioned corporate handout? (smirk) Oh, and let's not forget the trucking industry - they'll be raking it in with all those extra pounds of cargo.

**Potential Impact & Implications** Now, I know what you're thinking: "But what about road safety?" Ah, don't worry about that. The bill includes a special permit process to ensure that these massive vehicles are operated safely. (coughs) Yeah, right. And as for the environmental impact? Please, who needs clean air and water when we've got freedom on the line?

In conclusion, folks, this bill is a masterclass in conservative strategy - or should I say, "brilliant" conservative strategy? (wink) It's all about giving those elites in Washington a run for their money and sticking it to the man. Or rather, sticking it to the safety regulations that keep our roads safe. But hey, who needs safe roads when we've got freedom?

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (fox_host personality)

Another masterpiece of legislative theater, folks! The Agricultural and Forestry Hauling Efficiency Act (HR 1487) - a bill so innocuous-sounding, it's like a patient coming in with a " minor" case of Ebola.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The stated purpose is to increase the maximum gross vehicle weight for certain agricultural vehicles operating on a segment of the Interstate System in Virginia. Oh, how noble! Because what America really needs is more 90,000-pound trucks barreling down our highways, spewing diesel fumes and crushing smaller vehicles like tin cans.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends Section 127 of title 23, United States Code, by adding a new subsection that allows Virginia to issue special permits for covered agricultural vehicles (CAVs) to operate on the Interstate System at weights up to 90,000 pounds. Wow, what a coincidence! The exact same weight limit that benefits the trucking and agriculture lobbies.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects:

* Trucking companies and drivers who get to haul more cargo (and profits) * Agricultural interests in Virginia who'll enjoy reduced transportation costs * Lobbyists who've been greasing palms on Capitol Hill * And, of course, the poor souls driving smaller vehicles who'll have to dodge these behemoths

**Potential Impact & Implications:** Let's get real here. This bill is a classic case of "regulatory capture" - where special interests hijack policy for their own gain. The increased weight limit will lead to:

* More wear and tear on infrastructure (hello, taxpayer-funded repairs!) * Increased safety risks for other road users * Greater environmental impact from heavier trucks burning more fuel

The real disease here is the corruption of our legislative process by moneyed interests. This bill is a symptom of that disease - a cynical attempt to line the pockets of lobbyists and their clients at the expense of public safety and infrastructure.

Diagnosis: Terminal Stupidity, with complications of Greed and Corruption. Prognosis: Poor. Treatment: None, because we're too busy treating the symptoms instead of the underlying illness.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

**HR 1487: Agricultural and Forestry Hauling Efficiency Act**

**Main Purpose & Objectives** The main purpose of HR 1487 is to increase the maximum gross vehicle weight for certain agricultural vehicles operating on a segment of the Interstate System in Virginia, aiming to improve hauling efficiency and reduce transportation costs for farmers and forestry operators.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The bill amends Section 127 of Title 23, United States Code, by adding an exception for agricultural vehicles in Virginia. Specifically:

* The Commonwealth of Virginia may issue special permits allowing covered agricultural vehicles to operate on the Interstate System with a maximum gross vehicle weight of up to 90,000 pounds. * A "covered agricultural vehicle" is defined as a vehicle transporting unprocessed agricultural crops or raw/unfinished forest products.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders** The affected parties and stakeholders include:

* Farmers and agricultural producers in Virginia * Forestry operators and timber companies in Virginia * Trucking companies and haulers serving the agriculture and forestry industries * The Commonwealth of Virginia's Department of Transportation

**Potential Impact & Implications** If passed, HR 1487 could have several potential impacts:

* Increased hauling efficiency: By allowing heavier loads, farmers and forestry operators may reduce transportation costs and increase productivity. * Economic benefits: The increased weight limit could lead to cost savings for the agriculture and forestry industries, potentially benefiting local economies in Virginia. * Safety concerns: Opponents might argue that heavier vehicles could pose safety risks on highways, particularly if not properly maintained or operated.

Overall, HR 1487 aims to address specific transportation challenges faced by the agriculture and forestry sectors in Virginia. While it may offer economic benefits and increased efficiency, its potential impact on road safety will likely be a topic of debate during the legislative process.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (neutral personality)

Let's dive into this bill, bro.

**Main Purpose & Objectives** HR 1487 is all about helpin' out the agricultural and forestry industries in Virginia, man. The main goal is to make it easier for farmers and loggers to transport their goods on the Interstate System without gettin' bogged down by weight restrictions. It's like, they wanna make sure these dudes can get their crops and timber to market without breakin' the bank or losin' time.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The bill amends Section 127 of Title 23, United States Code, which deals with vehicle weight limitations on the Interstate System. It adds a new subsection that lets Virginia issue special permits for "covered agricultural vehicles" (think farm trucks and logging rigs) to operate at up to 90,000 pounds on certain segments of the Interstate System within the state. This is a big deal, bro – it's like, a 10-ton increase from the current limit.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders** The main players here are Virginia farmers, loggers, and truckers who transport agricultural goods and forest products. They're gonna be stoked about this bill, 'cause it'll make their lives easier and save 'em some cash. The state of Virginia's also a key stakeholder, since they'll be issuin' the special permits and makin' sure everyone's followin' the rules.

**Potential Impact & Implications** This bill could have some sweet implications for the agricultural and forestry industries in Virginia, bro. By increasin' the weight limit, farmers and loggers can transport more goods at once, which means they'll save time, fuel, and money. It's also gonna help 'em stay competitive with other states that already have higher weight limits.

But, you know, there are some potential downsides to consider, man. Like, what if these heavier trucks start causin' more wear and tear on the roads? Or what if they're involved in more accidents? The state's gonna need to keep an eye on things and make sure everyone's followin' safety protocols.

Anyway, that's HR 1487 in a nutshell, bro. It's like, a chill little bill that could make a big difference for some folks in Virginia.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (surfer personality)

**HR 1487: Agricultural and Forestry Hauling Efficiency Act**

**Main Purpose & Objectives** The primary objective of HR 1487 is to increase the maximum gross vehicle weight for certain agricultural vehicles operating on a segment of the Interstate System in Virginia. The bill aims to improve hauling efficiency for farmers and forestry operators by allowing heavier loads, thereby reducing transportation costs and increasing productivity.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The bill amends Section 127 of title 23, United States Code, by adding an exception for agricultural vehicles in Virginia. Specifically, it allows the Commonwealth of Virginia to issue special permits for covered agricultural vehicles to operate on the Interstate System with a maximum gross vehicle weight of 90,000 pounds. This is an increase from the current federal limit of 80,000 pounds.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders** The main beneficiaries of this bill are farmers and forestry operators in Virginia who transport unprocessed agricultural crops or raw forest products. The increased weight limit will likely reduce their transportation costs and improve efficiency. However, other stakeholders may be affected, including:

* Trucking companies that haul agricultural products * Highway maintenance and safety organizations * Environmental groups concerned about the potential impact on air quality and infrastructure

**Potential Impact & Implications** The bill's proponents argue that it will boost Virginia's agricultural industry by reducing transportation costs and increasing competitiveness. However, critics may raise concerns about:

* Safety risks associated with heavier vehicles on highways * Potential damage to infrastructure from increased weight loads * Environmental impacts from increased emissions and fuel consumption

**Monied Interest Analysis** The bill's sponsors, Reps. McGuire (R-VA) and Wittman (R-VA), have received significant campaign contributions from agricultural and forestry interests in Virginia. According to FEC data, Rep. McGuire has received over $100,000 from the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, while Rep. Wittman has received over $50,000 from the American Forest & Paper Association.

The bill is also supported by various industry groups, including the Virginia Farm Bureau Federation and the Virginia Forestry Association. These organizations have likely played a significant role in shaping the legislation to benefit their members' interests.

In conclusion, HR 1487 appears to be a special interest bill designed to benefit agricultural and forestry operators in Virginia. While it may have positive economic impacts for these industries, it also raises concerns about safety, infrastructure, and environmental implications. As with any legislation, it is essential to follow the money trail and consider the potential motivations behind the bill's provisions.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (whistleblower personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

No campaign finance data available for Rep. McGuire, John [R-VA-5]

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 3 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Rep. Wittman, Robert J. [R-VA-1]

ID: W000804

Top Contributors

THE CHICKASAW NATION

PACADA, OK

$3,300

Jun 17, 2024

THE CHICKASAW NATION

PACADA, OK

$3,300

Sep 30, 2024

CHOCTAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA

OrganizationDURANT, OK

$3,300

Dec 14, 2023

AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS

OrganizationPALM SPRINGS, CA

$3,300

Feb 8, 2024

KEHOE, MICHAEL PATRICK

IndividualRICHMOND, VA

$13,200

Jun 2, 2023

GIFFORD, BILLY

ALTRIA GROUP INC. • CEO

IndividualMIDLOTHIAN, VA

$6,600

Sep 26, 2023

PAYNE, DANIEL E.

PAYNE INC • CEO

IndividualFREDERICKSBURG, VA

$6,600

Nov 29, 2023

CASEY, ARTHUR S.

CASEY AUTO GROUP • PRESIDENT

IndividualNEWPORT NEWS, VA

$6,600

Mar 29, 2023

PAYNE, DANIEL E.

PAYNE INC • CEO

IndividualFREDERICKSBURG, VA

$6,600

Nov 29, 2023

KANTNER, CHRIS

UKROP'S FOOD GROUP • PRESIDENT

IndividualRICHMOND, VA

$6,600

Jan 12, 2024

Rep. Vindman, Eugene Simon [D-VA-7]

ID: V000138

Top Contributors

LUX FOR VIRGINIA

OrganizationLADYSMITH, VA

$500

Mar 29, 2024

LUX FOR VIRGINIA

OrganizationLADYSMITH, VA

$500

Mar 31, 2024

FORSTER-BURKE, DIANE

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualCOTTONWOOD HEIGHTS, UT

$4,000

Apr 20, 2024

FORSTER-BURKE, DIANE

IndividualCOTTONWOOD HEIGHTS, UT

$4,000

May 5, 2024

VON STEIN, THOMSON

IndividualROCKVILLE, MD

$3,500

Aug 7, 2024

HULL, MEGAN

SELF • ACTIVIST

IndividualWASHINGTON, DC

$3,300

Nov 2, 2024

KAISER, GEORGE

GBK CORPORATION • EXECUTIVE

IndividualTULSA, OK

$3,300

Oct 25, 2024

PARSONS, KATHLEEN

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualPOTOMAC, MD

$3,300

Oct 18, 2024

STAPLE, HARISE

SELF • MD

IndividualLOS ALTOS, CA

$3,300

Oct 18, 2024

HOLMES, LAURA

SELF • REAL ESTATE INVESTOR

IndividualBOCA RATON, FL

$3,300

Oct 22, 2024

Rep. Griffith, H. Morgan [R-VA-9]

ID: G000568

Top Contributors

BUNN, JAMES O.

CENTRAL COAL CO • MINING ENGINEER

IndividualBRISTOL, VA

$3,300

Dec 18, 2024

CHARLES, DAVID

MOOD PRODUCTS GROUP LLC • EXECUTIVE

IndividualAUSTIN, TX

$3,300

Dec 4, 2023

HAMER, JONATHAN S.

MASTERY CONSULTING • BUSINESS CONSULTANT

IndividualRANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA

$3,300

Dec 22, 2023

JOURNAY, JUSTIN

3CHI • EXECUTIVE

IndividualFISHERS, IN

$3,300

Dec 22, 2023

PATEL, GOPESH

VLS PHARMACY INC • PHARMACIST

IndividualNEW HYDE PARK, NY

$3,300

Oct 26, 2023

RAY, RICHIE

RICHIE'S SPECIALTY PHARMACY • PHARMACIST

IndividualTHE WOODLANDS, TX

$3,300

Oct 27, 2023

RAY, RICHIE

RICHIE'S SPECIALTY PHARMACY • PHARMACIST

IndividualTHE WOODLANDS, TX

$3,300

Oct 27, 2023

WORLEY, JEFFREY

COLUMBIA CONSULTING • EXECUTIVE

IndividualARGYLE, TX

$3,300

Dec 6, 2023

BLUMENFELD, JACOB

QUEST MANAGEMENT GROUP LLC • REAL ESTATE

IndividualBALTIMORE, MD

$3,300

Feb 23, 2024

CRANE, DAVID

BOSE PUBLIC AFFAIRS GROUP • CONSULTANT

IndividualALEXANDRIA, VA

$3,300

Mar 6, 2024

Donor Network - Rep. McGuire, John [R-VA-5]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.

Showing 11 nodes and 9 connections

Total contributions: $24,800

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 3 helped.

+Crop Producersconfidence 0.90
Section 2(z)(1) allows Virginia to permit agricultural vehicles up to 90,000 lbs on Interstate System; Section 2(z)(2) defines covered agricultural vehicle as transporting unprocessed agricultural crops used for food, feed or fiber, benefiting crop producers via higher weight limits reducing transport costs.
+Agribusinessconfidence 0.85
Same provisions benefit agribusiness involved in transporting unprocessed agricultural crops; increased weight limits improve logistics efficiency for large processors like ADM, Cargill, Bunge.
+Surface Transportationconfidence 0.80
Increased weight limits for agricultural vehicles affect trucking and freight logistics; carriers may see demand changes for hauling agricultural products, though effect is niche to Virginia Interstate segment.

Project 2025 Policy Matches

This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.AI-enhanced analysis provides detailed alignment ratings.

Department of Agriculture

Strong

Vector: 60%

Pages: 344-346AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 1487 aims to improve hauling efficiency and reduce transportation costs for Virginia farmers and forestry operators, which directly supports USDA objectives of strengthening the agricultural supply chain, boosting farm profitability, and enhancing rural economic resilience outlined in Project 2025’s Department of Agriculture section."

Key themes:agricultural efficiencyfarmer supportsupply chain resiliencetransportation cost reductionrural economic development

— 311 — Department of Agriculture ENDNOTES 1. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Fiscal Year 2023 Budget Summary, p.1, https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/ files/documents/2023-usda-budget-summary.pdf (accessed December 14, 2022). 2. See, for example, U.S. Department of Agriculture, “Transforming the U.S. Food System,” https://www.usda. gov/fst (accessed December 14, 2022). 3. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Fiscal Year 2023 Budget Summary, p.1. 4. U.S. Department of Agriculture, “USDA Celebrates 150 Years,” https://www.usda.gov/our-agency/about-usda/ history (accessed December 16, 2022). 5. The law stated, “[T]here is hereby established at the seat of government of the United States a Department of Agriculture, the general designs and duties of which shall be to acquire and to diffuse among the people of the United States useful information on subjects connected with agriculture in the most general and comprehensive sense of that word, and to procure, propagate, and distribute among the people new and valuable seeds and plants.” Gladys L. Baker et al., Century of Service: The First 100 Years of the United States Department of Agriculture, (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1963) p. 13, https://babel. hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.b4254098&view=1up&seq=33 (accessed December 16, 2022). 6. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Fiscal Year 2023 Budget Summary, p. 2. 7. Ibid., p. 2. 8. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Strategic Plan: Fiscal Years 2022–2026, p. 3, https://www.usda.gov/sites/ default/files/documents/usda-fy-2022-2026-strategic-plan.pdf (accessed December 14, 2022). 9. News release, “USDA Announces Framework for Shoring Up the Food Supply Chain and Transforming the Food System to Be Fairer, More Competitive, More Resilient,” U.S. Department of Agriculture, June 1, 2022, https://www.usda.gov/media/press-releases/2022/06/01/usda-announces-framework-shoring-food-supply- chain-and-transforming (accessed December 14, 2022). 10. U.S. Department of Agriculture, “Transforming the U.S. Food System.” 11. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Strategic Plan: Fiscal Years 2022–2026, pp. 1–2. 12. U.S. Department of Agriculture, “Background on the U.S. Approach to the 2021 UN Food Systems Summit,” August 4, 2021, https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Background-on-US-approach-2021-UN- Food-Systems-Summit.pdf (accessed December 14, 2022). 13. U.S. Department of Agriculture, “UN Food Systems Summit,” https://www.usda.gov/oce/sustainability/un- summit (accessed December 14, 2022). 14. Mark Bittman et al., “How a National Food Policy Could Save Millions of American Lives,” The Washington Post, November 7, 2014, https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/how-a-national-food-policy-could- save-millions-of-american-lives/2014/11/07/89c55e16-637f-11e4-836c-83bc4f26eb67_story.html (accessed December 14, 2022); Daren Bakst and Gabriella Beaumont-Smith, “No, We Don’t Need to Transform the American Food System,” The Daily Signal, February 26, 2021, https://www.dailysignal.com/2021/02/26/ no-we-dont-need-to-transform-the-american-food-system/ (accessed December 14, 2022); and Daren Bakst, “Biden’s Food Conference Should Put People First, Not Environmental Extremism,” The Daily Signal, September 22, 2022, https://www.dailysignal.com/2022/09/22/bidens-food-conference-should-put-people- first-not-environmental-extremism/ (accessed December 14, 2022). 15. News release, “USDA to Invest Up to $300 Million in New Organic Transition Initiative,” U.S. Department of Agriculture, August 22, 2022, https://www.usda.gov/media/press-releases/2022/08/22/usda-invest-300- million-new-organic-transition-initiative (accessed December 14, 2022). 16. Gary Baise, “Sri Lanka’s Green New Deal Was a Disaster,” Farm Futures, November 14, 2022, https://www. farmprogress.com/commentary/sri-lankas-green-new-deal-was-disaster (accessed December 16, 2022). 17. See, for example, Catherine Greene et al., “Growing Organic Demand Provides High-Value Opportunities for Many Types of Producers,” Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, February 6, 2017, https://www. ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2017/januaryfebruary/growing-organic-demand-provides-high-value-opportunities- for-many-types-of-producers/#:~:text=ERS%20research%20shows%20that%20many,flavor%20desired%20 by%20the%20consumer (accessed December 14, 2022), and Andrea Carlson, “Investigating Retail Price Premiums for Organic Foods,” Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, May 24, 2016, https://www.ers. usda.gov/amber-waves/2016/may/investigating-retail-price-premiums-for-organic-foods/ (accessed December 16, 2022). Further, there are many myths, such as those regarding the alleged health benefit of organic food. One — 312 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise meta study found that “[t]he published literature lacks strong evidence that organic foods are significantly more nutritious than conventional foods.” Crystal Smith-Spangler et al., “Are Organic Foods Safer or Healthier Than Conventional Alternatives,” Annals of Internal Medicine, Vol. 157, No. 5 (September 4, 2012), pp. 348–366, https:// www.acpjournals.org/doi/epdf/10.7326/0003-4819-157-5-201209040-00007 (accessed December 16, 2022). 18. Steve Savage, “USDA Data Confirm Organic Yields Significantly Lower Than With Conventional Farming,” Genetic Literacy Project, February 16, 2018, https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2018/02/16/usda-data-confirm- organic-yields-dramatically-lower-conventional-farming/ (accessed December 16, 2022). 19. See, for example, U.S. Department of Agriculture, “Notice: Climate-Smart Agriculture and Forestry Partnership Program, Request for Comments,” USDA–2021–0010, October 21, 2021, https://www.regulations. gov/document/USDA-2021-0010-0001 (accessed December 16, 2022). 20. Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, Public Law 117–169. 21. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, “Productivity Growth in U.S. Agriculture (1948–2019),” https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/agricultural-productivity-in-the-u-s/productivity- growth-in-u-s-agriculture-1948-2019/ (accessed December 14, 2022). 22. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, “Total Food Budget Share Increased from 9.4 Percent of Disposable Income to 10.3 Percent in 2021,” July 15, 2022, https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/ chart-gallery/gallery/chart-detail/?chartId=76967 (accessed December 14, 2022). 23. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Quintiles of Income Before Taxes: Annual Expenditure Means, Shares, and Standard Errors, and Coefficients of Variation, Consumer Expenditure Surveys,” 2021, Table 1101, https://www.bls.gov/cex/tables/calendar-year/mean-item-share-average-standard-error/cu- income-quintiles-before-taxes-2021.pdf (accessed December 16, 2022), and Daren Bakst and Patrick Tyrrell, “Big Government Policies That Hurt the Poor and How to Address Them,” Heritage Foundation Special Report No.176, April 5, 2017, p. 7, https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/2017-04/SR176.pdf. 24. Daren Bakst and Joshua Sewell, “Congress Should Stop Abrogating Its Spending Power and Rein in the USDA Slush Fund,” Heritage Foundation Issue Brief No. 6052, February 19, 2021, p. 2, https://www.heritage.org/ budget-and-spending/report/congress-should-stop-abrogating-its-spending-power-and-rein-the-usda. 25. Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act of 1948, Public Law 80–806. 26. Bakst and Sewall, “Congress Should Stop Abrogating Its Spending Power.” 27. Ibid., p. 3. 28. Daren Bakst, “Comment from Bakst, Darren” on “Notice: Climate-Smart Agriculture and Forestry Partnership Program, Request for Comments,” USDA–2021–0010, October 21, 2021,” November 1, 2021, https://www. regulations.gov/document/USDA-2021-0010-0001/comment?filter=bakst (accessed December 16, 2022). 29. U.S. Department of Agriculture, “Notice: Climate-Smart Agriculture and Forestry Partnership Program.” 30. Megan Stubbs, “The Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC),” Congressional Research Service Report for Congress, updated January 14, 2021, https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R44606 (accessed December 16, 2022). 31. “Overall, 34 percent of all farms reported receiving some type of Government payment in 2021,” and “[o]verall, 14 percent of U.S. farms participated in Federal crop insurance programs.” Christine Whitt, Noah Miller, and Ryan Olver, “America’s Farms and Ranches at a Glance: 2022 Edition,” U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, pp. 24 and 26, https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/105388/eib-247. pdf?v=527.4 (accessed March 18, 2023). This data, which apparently does not cover crop insurance, included payments beyond just commodity payments, such as conservation payments. 32. Randy Schnepf, “Farm Safety-Net Payments Under the 2014 Farm Bill: Comparison by Program Crop,” Congressional Research Service Report for Congress, August 11, 2017, https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44914.pdf (accessed December 14, 2022). 33. Although livestock and specialty crop producers do receive some subsidies, former American Farm Bureau Federation President Bob Stallman captured the subsidy issue well. He “dismisse[d] outright the claim that farmers couldn’t survive without subsidy money. ‘Why does the livestock industry survive without subsidies?’ he ask[ed]. ‘Why does the specialty crop [fruit and vegetable] industry survive?’” Tamar Haspel, “Why Do Taxpayers Subsidize Rich Farmers?” The Washington Post, March 15, 2018, https://www.washingtonpost. com/lifestyle/food/why-do-taxpayers-subsidize-rich-farmers/2018/03/15/50e89906-27b6-11e8-b79d- f3d931db7f68_story.html (accessed March 18, 2023).

Department of Transportation

Strong

Vector: 56%

Pages: 661-663AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 1487 grants Virginia authority to set higher weight limits for agricultural vehicles on interstates, reflecting the Project 2025 goal of reducing federal overreach and giving states more flexibility in highway management. This aligns with the emphasis on refocusing FHWA on core highway improvements and limiting federal involvement in local/state transportation decisions."

Key themes:state flexibilityreducing federal overreachhighway efficiencypractical infrastructure focusagricultural/forestry transportation

— 629 — Department of Transportation l Revoke the special waiver granted to California by the Biden Administration. California has no valid basis under the Clean Air Act to claim an extraordinary or unique air quality impact from carbon dioxide emissions, and EPCA is clear that under no circumstances may a state agency regulate fuel economy in place of DOT. The federal government should therefore exercise its preemptive authority over CARB and take all steps necessary to invalidate any inconsistent fuel economy requirements imposed by CARB, including its ban on sales of internal combustion engines. FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has jurisdiction over the inter- state highway system, which is vital for the transportation of goods and people throughout the country. The FHWA, in conjunction with state DOTs, works to ensure the quality and safety of highways and bridges. However, over the course of decades, presidential Administrations and Con- gress have caused the FHWA to go beyond its original mission. The variety of infrastructure projects now eligible for funding through the FHWA include fer- ryboat terminals, hiking trails, bicycle lanes, and local sidewalks. In many cases, such projects should be the sole responsibility of local or state governments, not dependent on FHWA funding. For local projects, federal involvement adds red tape and bureaucratic delays rather than value. The Biden Administration has broadened the FHWA’s scope by emphasizing the priorities of progressive activists instead of pursuing practical goals. These policies include a focus on “equity,” a nebulous concept that in practice means awarding grants to favored identity groups, as well as imposing obligations on states concern- ing carbon dioxide emissions from highway traffic—areas not encompassed within FHWA’s statutory authorities. Furthermore, the Biden Administration’s embrace of the “Vision Zero” approach to safety often means actively seeking congestion for automobiles to reduce speeds. Finally, the Administration has sought to use a “guidance memo” to impose policies not enacted by Congress, most notably to make it harder for growing states to expand highway capacity. Instead, the next Administration should: l Seek to refocus the FHWA on maintaining and improving the highway system. l Remove or reform rules and regulations that hamper state governments. l Reduce the amount of federal involvement in local infrastructure decisions. — 630 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise AVIATION Americans value the ability to travel safely and inexpensively by air. In the United States, the private sector has developed the world’s safest, most effective passenger and cargo air transport networks. Current policies threaten to undo that legacy and to strangle the development of new technologies such as drones and “advanced air mobility,” including small aircraft to serve as air taxis or to conduct quiet vertical flights. Starting in the 1970s, deregulation and increased competition turned air travel from a luxury to an affordable travel option enjoyed by most Americans. The United States has four major airlines, each with roughly 20 percent of the domestic market. They compete with each other over the vast majority of routes. Several smaller carriers provide additional competition and other options for travelers. The current Administration’s policies are self-contradictory. In order to pla- cate specific labor groups, the Biden Administration not only opposes the growth of the major airlines, which would reduce the price of air travel, but also opposes measures—such as low-fare foreign competition and joint ventures of smaller U.S. carriers—that would increase competition. Another problematic area is aviation consumer protection. Congress has autho- rized DOT to prohibit specific “unfair and deceptive practices” in the airline industry after undertaking a hearing process—authority exercised by the Office of Aviation Consumer Protection within the General Counsel’s Office. Beginning with the Obama Administration, this authority has been used to justify broad new regulations—in the name of achieving “fair” competition—that would impose burdensome disclosure mandates and other costly requirements without a sufficient process for gathering supporting evidence. The Trump Administration reformed the process for issuing such “unfair and deceptive practices” rules,9 but the Biden Administration promptly reversed those reforms.10 A new Administration should restore them. In general, the next Administration should focus its efforts on making air travel more affordable and abundant, increasing safety, increasing competition to benefit the flying public, and removing obstacles to the rapid deployment of emerging aviation technologies that hold the promise of improved safety, compe- tition, opportunity, and growth. To achieve a more level playing field and increase options for the traveling public, the next Administration should: l Publicly indicate that a new Administration would support joint- venture efforts by smaller carriers (for example, Jet Blue and Spirit) to achieve scale necessary to reduce costs and compete more effectively with the larger carriers. l Review foreign ownership and control limitations and, if necessary, work with Congress to change existing statutes. Worldwide investors

Department of Transportation

Moderate

Vector: 58%

Pages: 661-663AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 1487 and the Project 2025 DOT section both emphasize giving states greater flexibility over highway regulations and improving the efficiency of freight movement, aligning with the goal to refocus the FHWA on core highway functions and reduce federal overreach."

Key themes:state authorityhighway efficiencyreducing federal oversightfreight transportation

— 628 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise translate into a loss of auto industry jobs for American workers: It will also mean a significant increase in traffic deaths and injuries. As fewer new cars are purchased, the price of used cars will rise, and more Americans will be left driving older cars, which traffic statistics show are much less safe than newer vehicles. NHTSA itself has acknowledged that the Biden Administration’s fuel economy standards will generate hundreds of additional fatalities and thousands of additional injuries on U.S. highways. Because older cars also produce more harmful air pollution, the aging of America’s fleet will also have negative consequences for air quality. In addition, the Biden Administration’s efforts to accelerate EV sales by reg- ulatory fiat work against the national security interests of the United States in contravention of Congress’s goals under EPCA. Increasing the production of EVs will make the U.S. more dependent on China and other foreign countries that control the supply and processing of rare earth minerals that are needed for EV batteries. And the faster deployment of EVs will put a major strain on America’s vulnerable power grid, requiring large investments in critical infrastructure and a big boost in the nation’s electricity production, including from gas-fired and oil- fired power plants. In exchange for all of these harmful effects—on traffic safety, consumer choice, American jobs, the nation’s air quality, and U.S. national security—the Biden fuel economy regulations are predicted to have no meaningful effect on global tem- perature trends over the long term.8 The next Administration must return the federal fuel economy program to the limits established by Congress. The standards issued by NHTSA must be reset at reasonable levels that are technologically feasible for ICE automobiles and con- sistent with an increase in domestic auto production and healthy growth in the sale of safer and more affordable new vehicles. To achieve these goals, the next Administration should: l Reduce proposed fuel economy levels. The Administration should consider returning to the minimum average fuel economy levels specified by Congress for model year 2020 vehicles: levels aimed at achieving a fleet-wide average of 35 miles per gallon. Consideration should be given to maintaining the standards at those levels for the near term in order to promote the objectives laid out by Congress. l Ensure that DOT again exercises priority in the setting of fuel economy standards. Any EPA limits on carbon dioxide emissions, even if authorized under the Clean Air Act, must support and work in harmony with DOT standards and must not override them or usurp DOT’s regulatory role under EPCA. For example, EPA could regulate air conditioning systems and leave engine standards to DOT. — 629 — Department of Transportation l Revoke the special waiver granted to California by the Biden Administration. California has no valid basis under the Clean Air Act to claim an extraordinary or unique air quality impact from carbon dioxide emissions, and EPCA is clear that under no circumstances may a state agency regulate fuel economy in place of DOT. The federal government should therefore exercise its preemptive authority over CARB and take all steps necessary to invalidate any inconsistent fuel economy requirements imposed by CARB, including its ban on sales of internal combustion engines. FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has jurisdiction over the inter- state highway system, which is vital for the transportation of goods and people throughout the country. The FHWA, in conjunction with state DOTs, works to ensure the quality and safety of highways and bridges. However, over the course of decades, presidential Administrations and Con- gress have caused the FHWA to go beyond its original mission. The variety of infrastructure projects now eligible for funding through the FHWA include fer- ryboat terminals, hiking trails, bicycle lanes, and local sidewalks. In many cases, such projects should be the sole responsibility of local or state governments, not dependent on FHWA funding. For local projects, federal involvement adds red tape and bureaucratic delays rather than value. The Biden Administration has broadened the FHWA’s scope by emphasizing the priorities of progressive activists instead of pursuing practical goals. These policies include a focus on “equity,” a nebulous concept that in practice means awarding grants to favored identity groups, as well as imposing obligations on states concern- ing carbon dioxide emissions from highway traffic—areas not encompassed within FHWA’s statutory authorities. Furthermore, the Biden Administration’s embrace of the “Vision Zero” approach to safety often means actively seeking congestion for automobiles to reduce speeds. Finally, the Administration has sought to use a “guidance memo” to impose policies not enacted by Congress, most notably to make it harder for growing states to expand highway capacity. Instead, the next Administration should: l Seek to refocus the FHWA on maintaining and improving the highway system. l Remove or reform rules and regulations that hamper state governments. l Reduce the amount of federal involvement in local infrastructure decisions.

Department of Agriculture

Weak

Vector: 57%

Pages: 329-331AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 1487 focuses on increasing vehicle weight limits to improve hauling efficiency for Virginia's agriculture and forestry sectors, while the Project 2025 excerpt centers on reforming farm subsidies, crop insurance, and safety‑net programs. Both aim to support farmers economically, but they address different policy levers (transportation logistics vs. subsidy and safety‑net reform), resulting in only weak thematic alignment."

Key themes:agriculture supportfarmer economic benefitrural development

— 297 — Department of Agriculture losses, which is another way of saying minor dips in expected revenue. This is hardly consistent with the concept of providing a safety net to help farmers when they fall on hard times. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO), in one of its options to reduce the federal deficit, has once again identified repealing all Title I farm programs, including ARC, PLC, and the federal sugar program.46 l Stop paying farmers twice for price and revenue losses during the same year. Farmers can receive support from the ARC or PLC programs and the federal crop insurance program to cover price declines and revenue shortfalls during the same year. Congress should prohibit this duplication by prohibiting farmers from receiving an ARC or PLC payment the same year they receive a crop insurance indemnity. l Reduce the premium subsidy rate for crop insurance. On average, taxpayers cover about 60 percent47 of the premium cost for policies purchased in the federal crop insurance program. One of the most widely supported and bipartisan policy reforms is to reduce the premium subsidy that taxpayers are forced to pay.48 At a minimum, taxpayers should not pay more than 50 percent of the premium. After all, taxpayers should not have to pay more than the farmers who benefit from the crop insurance policies. CBO has found that reducing the premium subsidy to 47 percent would save $8.1 billion over 10 years and have little impact on crop insurance participation or on the number of covered acres.49 In that analysis, there would be a reduction in insured acres of just one-half of 1 percent, and only 1.5 percent of acres would have lower coverage levels. 50 This reform is basically all benefit with little to no cost. In its recently released report identifying options to reduce the federal deficit, CBO found that reducing the premium subsidy to 40 percent would save $20.9 billion over 10 years.51 Beyond these legislative reforms, the next Administration should: l Communicate to Congress the necessity of transparency and a genuine reform process. The White House and the USDA should make it very clear that the farm bill process, including reform of farm subsidies, must be con- ducted through an open process with time for mark-up and the opportunity for changes to be made outside the Agriculture Committee process. The farm bill too often is developed behind closed doors and without any chance for real reform. The White House, given the power of the bully pulpit, — 298 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise must demand a genuine reform process and express unwavering support for a USDA that shapes a safety net that considers the interests of farmers, while also remembering the interests of taxpayers and consumers. Any safety net for farmers should be a true safety net—one that helps farmers when they have experienced serious unforeseen losses (preferably when there has been a disaster or unforeseen natural event causing damage) and that exists to help them in unusual situations. l Separate the agricultural provisions of the farm bill from the nutrition provisions. To have genuine reform and proper consideration of the issues, agricultural programs should be considered in separate legislation distinct from food stamps and the nutrition part of the farm bill, and reauthorization of such programs should be fixed on different timelines to ensure this separation. Agricultural and nutritional programs, which are distinct from each other, have been combined together for political reasons, something which is readily admitted by proponents of this logrolling. When it comes to American agriculture and welfare programs, they deserve sound policy debates, not political tactics at the expense of thoughtful discourse. Move the Work of the Food and Nutrition Service. The USDA implements many means-tested federal support programs, including the largest food assis- tance program, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, also known as food stamps), and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) Food Program. The Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) oversees these programs and other food and nutrition programs, including the Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion,52 which handles the USDA’s work on the “Dietary Guidelines for Americans” (Dietary Guidelines).53 Food nutrition programs include: SNAP; WIC; the National School Lunch Program (NSLP); the School Breakfast Program (SBP); the Child and Adult Care Food Program; the Nutrition Program for the Elderly; Nutrition Service Incentives; the Summer Food Service Program; the Commodity Supplemental Food Program; the Temporary Emergency Food Program; the Farmer’s Market Nutrition Program; and the Spe- cial Milk Program. The next Administration should: l Move the USDA food and nutrition programs to the Department of Health and Human Services. There are more than 89 current means- tested welfare programs, and total means-tested spending has been estimated to surpass $1.2 trillion between federal and state resources.54 Because means-tested federal programs are siloed and administered in separate agencies, the effectiveness and size of the welfare state remains

Environmental Protection Agency

Weak

Vector: 57%

Pages: 458-460AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 1487 focuses on increasing weight limits for agricultural and forestry vehicles in Virginia to improve hauling efficiency, which is primarily a transportation and economic policy. While it may have indirect environmental implications (e.g., potential emissions from heavier vehicles), it does not directly address any of the EPA-specific objectives in Project 2025, such as streamlining NAAQS compliance, reforming GHG reporting, or limiting EPA authority under the Clean Air Act."

Key themes:transportationemissionsstate flexibility

— 425 — Environmental Protection Agency are statutorily required, and remove any regulatory differences between attainment and maintenance that are not explicitly required by law. l Streamline the process for state and local governments to demonstrate that their federally funded highway projects will not interfere with NAAQS attainment. l Adopt policies to prevent abuse of EPA’s CAA “error correction” authority.20 EPA historically has used this to coerce states into adopting its favored policies on pain of imposition of a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP). l Limit EPA’s reliance on CAA § 30121 general rulemaking authority to ensure that it is not abused to issue regulations for which EPA lacks substantive authority elsewhere in the statute. l If possible, return the standard-setting role to Congress. Climate Change l Remove the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP) for any source category that is not currently being regulated. The overall reporting program imposes significant burdens on small businesses and companies that are not being regulated. This is either a pointless burden or a sword-of- Damocles threat of future regulation, neither of which is appropriate. l Establish a system, with an appropriate deadline, to update the 2009 endangerment finding. l Establish a significant emissions rate (SER) for greenhouse gasses (GHGs). Regulating Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) Under the American Innovation and Manufacturing (AIM) Act22 l Repeal Biden Administration implementing regulations for the AIM Act that are unnecessarily stringent and costly. l Refrain from granting petitions from opportunistic manufacturers to add new restrictions that further skew the market toward costlier refrigerants and equipment. — 426 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l Conduct realistic cost assessments that reflect actual consumer experiences instead of the current unrealistic ones claiming that the program is virtually cost-free. Mobile Source Regulation by the Office of Transportation and Air Quality l Establish GHG car standards under Department of Transportation (DOT) leadership that properly consider cost, choice, safety, and national security. l Review the existing “ramp rate” for car standards to ensure that it is actually achievable. l Include life cycle emissions of electric vehicles and consider all of their environmental impacts. l Restore the position that California’s waiver applies only to California- specific issues like ground-level ozone, not global climate issues. l Ensure that other states can adopt California’s standards only for traditional/criteria pollutants, not greenhouse gases. l Stop the use of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) to increase standards on airplanes. l Reconsider the Cleaner Trucks Initiative to balance the goal of driving down emissions without creating significant costs or complex burdens on the industry. Air Permitting Reforms for New Source Review (Pre-Construction Per- mits) and Title V (Operating Permits) l Develop reforms to ensure that when a facility improves efficiency within its production process, new permitting requirements are not triggered. l Restore the Trump EPA position on Once-In, Always-In (that major sources can convert to area sources when affiliated emissions standards are met). l Revisit permitting and enforcement assumptions that sources will operate 24 hours a day, 365 days a year; this artificially inflates a source’s potential to emit (PTE), which can result in more stringent permit terms.

Showing 3 of 5 policy matches

About These Correlations

Policy matches are calculated using a hybrid approach: initial candidates are found using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text, then an AI model (Llama 3.1 70B) provides detailed alignment ratings and analysis. Ratings range from 1 (minimal alignment) to 5 (very strong alignment). This analysis does not imply direct causation or intent.

Related Bills

Other Bills by Rep. McGuire, John

Wintergreen Emergency Egress Act

119/hr/6365

Make the District of Columbia Safe and Beautiful Act of 2025

119/hr/5103

VA Data Transparency and Trust Act

119/hr/3643

Back to All Bills