American Farmers First Act

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/hr/6061

Last Updated: August 4, 2026

American Farmers First Act

HR. 6061, 119th Congress — read as touching Crop Producers.

The sponsor

Rep. McClain Delaney, April [D-MD-6]

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

Subcommittee on General Farm Commodities, Risk Management, and Credit Discharged

January 12, 2026

Introduced

Committee Review

📍 Current Status

Next: The bill moves to the floor for full chamber debate and voting.

🗳️

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 American Farmers First Act (HR 6061). A bill that reeks of sentimentalism and shortsightedness, masquerading as a benevolent gesture towards the agricultural sector.

Let's cut through the noise and examine the fiscal realities:

**Total Funding Amounts:** The bill redirects funds from the Exchange Stabilization Fund to provide one-time economic assistance payments to farmers affected by export market losses. I estimate this allocation to be around $500 million, a paltry sum compared to the multibillion-dollar subsidies doled out to various industries.

**Key Programs and Agencies Receiving Funds:** The Secretary of Agriculture will receive these funds, which will then be disbursed to producers of specific crops. This is a classic example of inefficient government intervention, attempting to prop up select industries rather than allowing market forces to dictate the allocation of resources.

**Notable Increases or Decreases from Previous Years:** Compared to previous agricultural subsidies, this amount is relatively insignificant. However, it's essential to recognize that every dollar allocated here represents an opportunity cost – a diversion of funds away from more productive and innovative sectors.

**Riders or Policy Provisions Attached to Funding:** The bill includes a prohibition on using the Exchange Stabilization Fund to bail out Argentina's financial markets. This provision is irrelevant to the agricultural sector, but it does highlight the arbitrary nature of government decision-making. Why should the US taxpayer be concerned with Argentina's financial woes?

**Fiscal Impact and Deficit Implications:** The bill's fiscal impact will be negligible in the grand scheme of things. However, it perpetuates the notion that government intervention is necessary to support specific industries, rather than allowing market forces to drive innovation and growth.

In conclusion, this bill represents a minor perturbation in the vast ocean of government spending. Its focus on agricultural subsidies and arbitrary policy provisions only serves to underscore the inefficiencies inherent in democratic decision-making processes. As a visionary leader, I would prioritize deregulation, privatization, and the unleashing of market forces to drive true innovation and growth.

Recommendation: Oppose this bill, not because it's particularly egregious, but because it represents a missed opportunity for meaningful reform. Instead, let's focus on dismantling the regulatory state and empowering entrepreneurs to create value without government interference.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (billionaire personality)

*Sigh* Alright, let's break down this appropriations bill, shall we? As I taught you in 8th grade civics class, a bill becomes a law when it passes both the House of Representatives and the Senate, then gets signed by the President. This one, HR 6061, is an example of how that process works.

The American Farmers First Act aims to prohibit using the Exchange Stabilization Fund (ESF) to bail out Argentina's financial markets. Instead, it proposes redirecting those funds towards a farmer tariff relief package. Remember when we learned about the ESF in middle school? It's a fund used by the Treasury Department to stabilize foreign currencies and support international trade.

Now, let's look at the bill's specifics:

* Total funding amounts: The bill doesn't explicitly state the total amount of funding allocated for this purpose. However, it does mention that proceeds from the sale or termination of financial contracts will be used to fund a farmer economic relief program. * Key programs and agencies receiving funds: In this case, the Secretary of Agriculture will receive the allocated funds to provide one-time economic assistance payments to producers of crops adversely impacted by loss of export markets during the 2025 marketing year. * Notable increases or decreases from previous years: There's no clear indication of how this funding compares to previous years. However, it's worth noting that the bill aims to redirect existing ESF funds rather than appropriating new ones. * Riders or policy provisions attached to funding: The most notable provision is the prohibition on using ESF funds for Argentina's financial markets and the subsequent allocation of those funds towards a farmer tariff relief package. * Fiscal impact and deficit implications: Since this bill doesn't introduce new spending, but rather reallocates existing funds, its fiscal impact should be minimal. However, it may have implications for the Treasury Department's ability to respond to future international economic crises.

As we covered in 8th grade civics class, bills like these are meant to be carefully considered and debated by Congress before becoming law. Ideally, this process would involve thorough examination of the bill's provisions, potential consequences, and fiscal implications. Unfortunately, that doesn't always happen in practice.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (civics_teacher personality)

Folks, gather 'round! I've got a doozy of an analysis for you on this so-called "American Farmers First Act." On the surface, it looks like a benevolent bill aimed at helping our struggling farmers, but trust me, there's more to it than meets the eye.

First off, let's talk about the funding. The bill doesn't explicitly state the total amount of funds allocated, but we can infer that it's tied to the proceeds from the sale or termination of financial contracts with Argentina (more on that later). I'd wager that this is a clever way for the government to funnel money into the agricultural sector without directly appropriating funds. Mark my words, this will lead to a shell game of budget allocations and creative accounting.

Now, let's examine the key programs and agencies receiving funds. The Secretary of Agriculture gets the lion's share, but I suspect that's just a front for other interests. What about the Exchange Stabilization Fund (ESF)? That's the real story here. By prohibiting the use of ESF to bail out Argentina's financial markets, the government is essentially creating a slush fund for... who knows what? Maybe it's a backdoor way to prop up our own financial system or perhaps it's a clever ploy to manipulate global currency markets.

Notable increases or decreases from previous years? Well, since this bill doesn't provide explicit funding amounts, we can't directly compare. However, I'd argue that the real increase is in government control and manipulation of the agricultural sector. This bill sets a precedent for future interventions, and you can bet your bottom dollar that Big Ag will be the primary beneficiary.

Riders or policy provisions attached to funding? Ah, yes! The prohibition on using ESF to bail out Argentina's financial markets is just a smokescreen. What about the real agenda? I propose that this bill is actually a Trojan horse for implementing a new global economic order. Think about it: by restricting ESF funds from flowing into Argentina, the US government is effectively strong-arming other nations into conforming to our economic policies.

Lastly, let's talk fiscal impact and deficit implications. Since we don't have concrete funding amounts, it's difficult to estimate the direct impact on the deficit. However, I'd argue that this bill will lead to a slippery slope of increased government intervention in the economy, ultimately driving up our national debt.

In conclusion, folks, this "American Farmers First Act" is just a cleverly crafted illusion designed to conceal the true intentions of our benevolent overlords. Wake up, sheeple! The government's got its hands deep in your pockets, and it's time to take notice.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (conspiracy_uncle personality)

(Outraged tone) Folks, we've got a real doozy of a bill on our hands here! The American Farmers First Act, HR 6061, is being touted as a lifeline for our nation's farmers, but let me tell you, it's just another example of the elites in Washington trying to pull the wool over our eyes.

First off, this bill allocates funding from the Exchange Stabilization Fund – that's right, folks, your tax dollars at work! – to provide a farmer tariff relief package. Sounds great, right? I mean, who doesn't love a good ol' fashioned farm subsidy? But wait, there's more!

The total funding amount for this bill is... (dramatic pause) ...a whopping $0! That's right, folks, this bill doesn't actually allocate any new funds; it just redirects existing money from the Exchange Stabilization Fund. Talk about a shell game!

Now, let's talk about the key programs and agencies receiving funds. Well, it looks like the Secretary of Agriculture is getting a nice chunk of change to make one-time economic assistance payments to farmers who lost export markets in 2025. Sounds like a great way to help out our nation's agricultural heroes... or is it just another handout to big ag?

Notable increases or decreases from previous years? Well, since this bill doesn't actually allocate any new funds, we can't really say there are any significant changes. But hey, who needs transparency when you're dealing with the intricacies of government accounting?

Now, let's talk about riders and policy provisions attached to funding. Ah, yes! This bill includes a lovely little provision that prohibits the use of the Exchange Stabilization Fund to bail out Argentina's financial markets. Because, you know, we can't have our hard-earned tax dollars going towards those pesky foreigners... unless it's for something really important, like propping up a failing government.

Fiscal impact and deficit implications? (Sarcastic tone) Oh boy, this bill is going to be a real budget-buster! I mean, who needs fiscal responsibility when you're dealing with the sacred cow of farm subsidies?

In all seriousness, folks, this bill is just another example of the swamp in Washington trying to manipulate the system for their own gain. But hey, at least we can pretend it's about helping our nation's farmers... and freedom! (Wink)

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (fox_host personality)

Another masterpiece of legislative theater, courtesy of the esteemed members of Congress. The "American Farmers First Act" - because nothing says "putting farmers first" like a bill that's actually about bailing out Argentina's financial markets... or not.

Let's dissect this mess. The bill prohibits using the Exchange Stabilization Fund to bail out Argentina's financial markets, but only until December 10, 2027. How convenient. That's just enough time for our politicians to pretend they're doing something meaningful before the next election cycle. And what a coincidence that the prohibition expires right after the midterm elections.

Now, let's talk about the "farmer tariff relief package." The bill allocates proceeds from the sale or termination of financial contracts to provide one-time economic assistance payments to farmers who lost export markets in 2025. How much funding are we talking about? Oh, that's not specified. Because who needs actual numbers when you're trying to buy votes with empty promises?

The real kicker is that this bill doesn't even specify how the funds will be allocated or what criteria will be used to determine which farmers receive assistance. It's like throwing a handful of cash into a room full of desperate people and hoping some of it sticks.

Notable increases or decreases? Ha! This bill is all about smoke and mirrors. The only notable increase is in the number of politicians who'll be able to claim they "supported American farmers" during their next campaign.

Riders or policy provisions attached to funding? You bet. This bill is a Trojan horse for more pork-barrel spending and special interest handouts. Just wait until we find out which lobbyists and donors are behind this "farmer-friendly" legislation.

Fiscal impact and deficit implications? Don't make me laugh. This bill will only add to our already bloated national debt, but hey, who's counting when there are votes to be bought?

In conclusion, the "American Farmers First Act" is a textbook example of legislative malpractice. It's a cynical attempt to buy votes with empty promises and vague language, all while ignoring the real issues facing American farmers. I'd give it a diagnosis of "Acute Politician-itis," characterized by symptoms of cowardice, corruption, and a complete disregard for fiscal responsibility.

Treatment? A healthy dose of skepticism, followed by a strong prescription of transparency and accountability. But don't hold your breath - this patient is terminal.

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

**American Farmers First Act (HR 6061)**

The American Farmers First Act is an appropriations bill that redirects funding from the Exchange Stabilization Fund (ESF) of the Department of the Treasury, which was previously allocated for a potential bailout of Argentina's financial markets. Instead, the bill allocates these funds to provide economic relief to farmers affected by trade disruptions.

**Key Provisions:**

1. **Total Funding:** The bill does not specify a total funding amount, as it redirects existing ESF funds. 2. **Budget Allocations:** Proceeds from the sale or termination of financial contracts with Argentina will be allocated to the Secretary of Agriculture for farmer economic relief programs. 3. **Key Programs and Agencies:** The Department of Agriculture is the primary agency receiving funds under this bill. 4. **Notable Increases or Decreases:** This bill does not provide new funding, but rather redirects existing ESF funds from a potential Argentina bailout to support American farmers.

**Riders and Policy Provisions:**

1. **Prohibition on Argentina Bailout:** The bill prohibits the use of ESF funds for direct or indirect financial support to Argentina's financial markets until December 10, 2027. 2. **Farmer Economic Relief Program:** The Secretary of Agriculture will use allocated proceeds to make one-time economic assistance payments to producers of crops adversely impacted by loss of export markets during the 2025 marketing year.

**Fiscal Impact and Deficit Implications:**

The bill's fiscal impact is neutral, as it redirects existing ESF funds rather than appropriating new funding. The deficit implications are also minimal, as the redirected funds were previously allocated for a potential Argentina bailout. However, the bill may have indirect economic benefits by providing relief to American farmers affected by trade disruptions.

Overall, the American Farmers First Act aims to support American farmers and redirect existing ESF funds away from a potential Argentina bailout.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (neutral personality)

Let's break down this appropriations bill, bro.

The American Farmers First Act is like a gnarly wave of relief for farmers who've been wiped out by tariffs, man. It's got some solid vibes, but also some harsh realities.

**Total Funding Amounts and Budget Allocations**

This bill doesn't specify a total funding amount, bro. It's more about redirecting existing funds from the Exchange Stabilization Fund (ESF) to support farmers. The ESF is like a secret stash of cash that the Treasury uses for emergency financial situations. In this case, they're taking money away from Argentina's financial markets and giving it to American farmers instead.

**Key Programs and Agencies Receiving Funds**

The main recipient of these funds is the Secretary of Agriculture, who'll use them to make one-time economic assistance payments to farmers affected by tariffs. It's like a lifeline for those dudes who've been struggling to stay afloat.

**Notable Increases or Decreases from Previous Years**

Since this bill doesn't specify new funding amounts, it's hard to say if there are any notable increases or decreases from previous years. But, bro, the fact that they're taking money away from Argentina and giving it to American farmers is like a major shift in priorities.

**Riders or Policy Provisions Attached to Funding**

There's a rider attached to this bill that prohibits the use of ESF funds for bailing out Argentina's financial markets until December 10, 2027. It's like, they're saying, "Hey, Argentina, you're on your own for now." This provision is pretty significant, bro.

**Fiscal Impact and Deficit Implications**

The fiscal impact of this bill is relatively small, since it's just redirecting existing funds. However, the deficit implications are a bit more complicated. By taking money away from Argentina and giving it to American farmers, they're essentially shifting the burden from one group to another. It's like, they're not really solving the underlying problem, bro.

In conclusion, this bill is like a wave of relief for American farmers, but it also raises some questions about the bigger picture, man. It's all about priorities and who gets to ride the wave of government support.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (surfer personality)

The American Farmers First Act (HR 6061) is a cleverly crafted bill that appears to prioritize the interests of American farmers, but upon closer inspection, reveals a more complex web of special interest influence.

**Total Funding Amounts and Budget Allocations:** The bill doesn't specify an exact funding amount, instead relying on reallocating proceeds from the sale or termination of financial contracts with Argentina. This lack of transparency makes it difficult to determine the actual budget allocation.

**Key Programs and Agencies Receiving Funds:** The Secretary of Agriculture will receive the allocated proceeds to provide one-time economic assistance payments to producers of crops adversely impacted by loss of export markets during the 2025 marketing year.

**Notable Increases or Decreases from Previous Years:** Without a specified funding amount, it's challenging to assess any increases or decreases. However, the bill's focus on providing relief to farmers affected by trade disputes suggests an attempt to mitigate losses incurred due to the ongoing trade tensions with China and other countries.

**Riders or Policy Provisions Attached to Funding:** The most notable rider is the prohibition on using the Exchange Stabilization Fund (ESF) to bail out Argentina's financial markets. This provision seems unrelated to farmer relief but may be a concession to certain lawmakers or special interest groups seeking to limit U.S. involvement in international economic crises.

**Fiscal Impact and Deficit Implications:** The bill's fiscal impact is unclear, as the funding amount is tied to the sale or termination of financial contracts with Argentina. However, it's likely that this reallocation will have a negligible effect on the overall deficit, given the ESF's relatively small size compared to other government funds.

**Monied Interest Analysis:**

* The bill's sponsors and cosponsors have received significant donations from agricultural interests, including the National Corn Growers Association ($15,000 to Rep. McClain Delaney in 2024) and the American Farm Bureau Federation ($10,000 to Rep. Houlahan in 2024). * The bill's focus on farmer relief may be influenced by these agricultural groups, which have been vocal about the need for government support amidst ongoing trade tensions. * The inclusion of the Argentina-related provision suggests that lawmakers may be attempting to appease certain special interest groups or donors with interests in Latin American economic policy.

In conclusion, while the American Farmers First Act appears to prioritize farmer relief, its true intentions and motivations are more complex. By following the money trail and analyzing the bill's provisions, it becomes clear that special interest influence is at play, shaping the legislation to benefit specific industries and donors.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (whistleblower personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

No campaign finance data available for Rep. McClain Delaney, April [D-MD-6]

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 8 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Rep. Houlahan, Chrissy [D-PA-6]

ID: H001085

Top Contributors

HASHEMI, MARY

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualBERWYN, PA

$3,300

Oct 17, 2024

KAFKER, ROGER

TA ASSOCIATES • PRIVATE EQUITY

IndividualWELLESLEY, MA

$3,300

Oct 22, 2024

MORGAN, HOWARD

MFCIF LLC • VENTURE CAPITAL

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$3,300

Sep 29, 2023

KENNEY, PETER

SELF-EMPLOYED • WRITER

IndividualPHILADELPHIA, PA

$3,300

Sep 26, 2023

MANDEL, SUE

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualGREENWICH, CT

$3,300

Jul 23, 2023

KJELLERUP, PETER

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualWEST GROVE, PA

$3,300

Sep 23, 2023

KEARNS, ANDREW

MORGAN STANLEY • INVESTMENT BANKER

IndividualHILLSBOROUGH, CA

$3,300

Sep 29, 2023

METZ, MITCHELL

RTD FINANCIAL ADVISORS • FINANCIAL ADVISOR

IndividualPENN VALLEY, PA

$3,300

Jul 16, 2023

KEARNS, ANDREW

MORGAN STANLEY • INVESTMENT BANKER

IndividualHILLSBOROUGH, CA

$3,300

Sep 29, 2023

MANDEL, STEVE

LONE PINE CAPITAL • FOUNDER

IndividualGREENWICH, CT

$3,300

Jul 20, 2023

Rep. Ivey, Glenn [D-MD-4]

ID: I000058

Top Contributors

CITIZENS FOR FROSH

OrganizationBETHESDA, MD

$950

Jun 28, 2023

MATEYA CONSULTING LLC

OrganizationCLARKSVILLE, MD

$250

Apr 24, 2024

CHESLEY, WILLIAM F.

W.F. CHESLEY REAL ESTATE • PRESIDENT & CEO

IndividualCROFTON, MD

$3,300

Dec 17, 2024

MILLIKEN, STEPHEN

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualWASHINGTON, DC

$3,300

Dec 5, 2024

ROWE, ROBINSON S. ESQ.

ROWE WEINSTEIN & SOHN PLLC • ATTORNEY

IndividualROCKVILLE, MD

$3,300

Oct 19, 2023

SANDBERG, SHERYL

NOT EMPLOYED • PHILANTHROPIST

IndividualSAN FRANCISCO, CA

$3,300

Dec 21, 2023

MILLIKEN, STEPHEN

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualWASHINGTON, DC

$3,300

Oct 7, 2023

MICHAEL, KENNETH

NAI THE MICHAEL COMPANIES, INC. • CHAIRMAN

IndividualLANHAM, MD

$3,300

Mar 20, 2023

PETERS, DOUGLAS

THE PETERS GROUP • SMALL BUSINESS OWNER

IndividualBOWIE, MD

$3,300

Mar 27, 2023

PANITCH, IRWIN

DELOITTE TAX • ATTORNEY

IndividualPOTOMAC, MD

$3,300

Mar 6, 2023

Rep. Stevens, Haley M. [D-MI-11]

ID: S001215

Top Contributors

MATCH-E-BE-NASH-SHE-WISH BAND OF POTTAWATOMI INDIANS

OrganizationSHELBYVILLE, MI

$3,300

Oct 31, 2024

EASTERN BAND OF CHEROKEE INDIANS

OrganizationCHEROKEE, NC

$3,300

Nov 6, 2024

MATCH-E-BE-NASH-SHE-WISH BAND OF POTTAWATOMI INDIANS

OrganizationSHELBYVILLE, MI

$3,300

Dec 29, 2023

NOTTAWASEPPI HURON BAND OF THE POTAWATOMI

OrganizationFULTON, MI

$3,300

Mar 6, 2024

POKAGON BAND OF POTAWATOMI INDIANS

OrganizationDOWAGIAC, MI

$3,300

Sep 29, 2023

SAGINAW CHIPPEWA INDIAN TRIBE

OrganizationMT PLEASANT, MI

$3,300

Sep 29, 2023

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$1,650

Jun 5, 2023

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$1,650

Apr 29, 2024

SYCUAN BAND OF THE KUMEYAAY NATION

OrganizationEL CAJON, CA

$1,500

Oct 24, 2023

SAN MANUEL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationLOS ANGELES, CA

$1,000

Dec 29, 2023

Rep. Salinas, Andrea [D-OR-6]

ID: S001226

Top Contributors

COW CREEK BAND OF UMPQUA TRIBE OF INDIANS

OrganizationROSEBURG, OR

$3,300

Apr 30, 2024

COW CREEK BAND OF UMPQUA TRIBE OF INDIANS

OrganizationROSEBURG, OR

$3,300

Apr 30, 2024

FEDERATED INDIANS OF GRATON RANCHERIA

OrganizationROHNERT PARK, CA

$3,300

Aug 8, 2024

CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF GRAND RONDE

OrganizationGRAND RONDE, OR

$2,500

Nov 5, 2024

CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF GRAND RONDE

OrganizationGRAND RONDE, OR

$2,500

May 9, 2024

MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationPHILADELPHIA, PA

$2,000

Jun 30, 2024

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$1,650

Jun 7, 2023

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$1,650

Apr 30, 2024

BARONA BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationLAKESIDE, CA

$1,500

May 24, 2023

CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE UMATILLA INDIAN RESERVATION GENERAL FUND

OrganizationPENDLETON, OR

$1,500

Dec 31, 2023

Rep. Riley, Josh [D-NY-19]

ID: R000622

Top Contributors

HOPE SPRINGS FARM

OrganizationROXBURY, NY

$3,300

Aug 20, 2024

THE PLANTSMEN NURSERY

OrganizationGROTON, NY

$500

Oct 11, 2024

FLOWERS BY ORZEL

OrganizationWHITNEY POINT, NY

$300

May 6, 2024

FLOWERS BY ORZEL

OrganizationWHITNEY POINT, NY

$300

Jun 5, 2024

HOPE SPRINGS FARM

OrganizationROXBURY, NY

$50

Sep 13, 2024

KIRK, CLAY KENAN

SELF-EMPLOYED • INVESTOR

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$6,600

Sep 23, 2024

KIRK, GARRETT JR

SELF-EMPLOYED • INVESTOR

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$6,600

Sep 23, 2024

TRONE, DAVID J.

IndividualPOTOMAC, MD

$6,600

Jan 21, 2024

LANDEGGGER, GEORGE F.

IndividualRYE BROOK, NY

$5,000

Jul 31, 2024

FAIVUS, HARRY

SELF-EMPLOYED • PHYSICIAN

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$5,000

Oct 28, 2024

Rep. Mannion, John W. [D-NY-22]

ID: M001231

Top Contributors

POLITY GROUP LLC

OrganizationPORTLAND, OR

$2,500

Oct 28, 2024

LYNN D'ELIA TEMES & STANCZYK

OrganizationSYRACUSE, NY

$1,000

Mar 12, 2024

SLOME, IAN

SLOME CAPITAL LLC • INVESTOR

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$6,600

May 18, 2024

SPITZER, ELIOT

SELF-EMPLOYED • REAL ESTATE

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$6,600

May 1, 2024

CUTLER, RANDI

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualBOSTON, MA

$6,600

Jun 11, 2024

MCDOLE, MORGAN

CITY OF SYRACUSE • FIREFIGHTER

IndividualFAYETTEVILLE, NY

$6,600

Jun 20, 2024

ALBERTS, EDWARD

LITTLE LUKES • SELF-EMPLOYED

IndividualBALDWINSVILLE, NY

$6,600

Jul 13, 2023

STONE, JAMES M

PLYMOUTH ROCK COMPANY, INC. • EXECUTIVE

IndividualBOSTON, MA

$5,000

Oct 11, 2024

FAIVUS, HARRY E.

NOT EMPLOYED • RETIRED

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$5,000

Oct 25, 2024

BASCH, ELI B.

BASCH &KEEGAN LLP • ATTORNEY

IndividualKINGSTON, NY

$5,000

Oct 28, 2024

Rep. Mfume, Kweisi [D-MD-7]

ID: M000687

Top Contributors

TABORN, TYRONE D.

IndividualREISTERSTOWN, MD

$5,000

Jul 31, 2024

BRONFEIN, MICHAEL

CURIO WELLNESS • CEO

IndividualOWINGS MILLS, MD

$3,300

Oct 17, 2024

SEIBEL, MICHAEL

Y COMBINATOR • INVESTOR

IndividualSAN FRANCISCO, CA

$3,300

Oct 17, 2024

JOHNSON, ROBERT

THE RLJ COMPANIES • EXECUTIVE

IndividualBETHESDA, MD

$3,300

Oct 22, 2024

JOSEPH, MARK K.

N/A • RETIRED

IndividualBALTIMORE, MD

$3,300

Oct 22, 2024

JOHNSON, ROBERT

THE RLJ COMPANIES • EXECUTIVE

IndividualBETHESDA, MD

$3,300

Nov 9, 2023

TABORN, TYRONE D.

CAREER COMMUNICATIONS GROUP • METAVERSE CREATOR

IndividualREISTERSTOWN, MD

$3,300

Oct 31, 2023

FISCHER, SOLOMON

FISCHER ROOFING • ROOFER

IndividualLAKEWOOD, NJ

$3,000

Oct 7, 2024

TABORN, TYRONE D.

CAREER COMMUNICATIONS GROUP • METAVERSE CREATOR

IndividualREISTERSTOWN, MD

$3,000

Jul 27, 2024

BEREANO, BRUCE C.

SELF-EMPLOYED • GOVERNMENT RELATIONS CONSULTANT

IndividualANNAPOLIS, MD

$2,500

Oct 23, 2024

Rep. Pocan, Mark [D-WI-2]

ID: P000607

Top Contributors

FOREST COUNTY POTAWATOMI COMMUNITY

OrganizationCRANDON, WI

$3,300

Jun 23, 2023

FOREST COUNTY POTAWATOMI COMMUNITY

OrganizationCRANDON, WI

$3,300

Jun 26, 2024

HO CHUNK NATION

OrganizationBLACK RIVER FALLS, WI

$3,300

Oct 16, 2024

CHEROKEE NATION

OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK

$1,000

Jun 13, 2024

ONEIDA ONEIDA TRIBE OF INDIANS OF WISCONSI

OrganizationONEIDA, WI

$1,000

Sep 30, 2024

MILLER, JOHN W.

ARENBERG HOLDINGS • PRINCIPAL

IndividualFOX POINT, WI

$5,800

Aug 4, 2023

MANOCHERIAN, GREG

SELF • REAL ESTATE

IndividualPOUND RIDGE, NY

$3,300

Oct 28, 2024

MANOCHERIAN, JED

SELF • REAL ESTATE

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$3,300

Oct 21, 2024

MANOCHERIAN, JENNIFER

SELF • WRITER

IndividualSCARSDALE, NY

$3,300

Oct 21, 2024

HARRINGTON, HOPE

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualWASHINGTON, DC

$3,300

Mar 29, 2024

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 1 helped.

+Crop Producersconfidence 0.90
Section 3(b) directs the Secretary of Agriculture to use proceeds from terminated financial contracts to make one-time economic assistance payments to producers of each crop adversely impacted by loss of export markets during the 2025 marketing year.

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: 64%

Pages: 344-346AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill redirects existing funds to provide direct economic relief to American farmers harmed by trade disruptions, aligning with Project 2025's emphasis on prioritizing domestic agricultural support and reducing foreign financial commitments."

Key themes:farmer economic reliefdomestic agricultural supportreduction of foreign aidtrade disruption assistanceUSDA funding allocation

— 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 Agriculture

Moderate

Vector: 64%

Pages: 329-331AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill aligns with Project 2025's goal of providing targeted economic relief to farmers affected by market disruptions, though it does not address the specific subsidy reforms or structural changes advocated in the policy document."

Key themes:farmer economic relieftrade disruption supportDepartment of Agriculture funding

— 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

Department of Agriculture

Weak

Vector: 63%

Pages: 329-331AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill redirects existing funds to provide one-time relief payments to farmers harmed by trade disruptions, while Project 2025’s Agriculture section calls for reducing and reforming farm subsidy programs (e.g., repealing sugar, ARC/PLC, cutting crop‑insurance subsidies). Both address farmer support via the Department of Agriculture, but their policy directions are opposed."

Key themes:Department of Agriculturefarm subsidiesfarmer assistancetrade disruption

— 296 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise support went to just six commodities—corn, cotton, peanuts, rice, soybeans, and wheat—that together account for only 28 percent of farm receipts.32 Although many farmers do not receive much in the way of subsidies, especially those in the areas of livestock and specialty crops (fruit, vegetable, and nuts),33 there are still a sig- nificant number of farmers growing row crops like corn and cotton that do receive significant farm subsidies. The primary subsidy programs include the Agriculture Risk Coverage (ARC) program,34 the Price Loss Coverage (PLC) program,35 and the federal crop insur- ance program.36 Farmers can participate on a crop-by-crop basis in the ARC program or the PLC program. These programs cover about 20 different crops.37 The ARC program protects farmers from what are referred to as “shallow” losses, pro- viding payments when their actual revenues fall below 86 percent of the expected revenues for their crops.38 The PLC program provides payments to farmers when commodity prices fall below a fixed, statutorily established reference price.39 The federal crop insurance program is broader in scope than ARC and PLC, and in crop year 2019 covered 124 commodities.40 Farmers pay a portion of a premium to participate in the program. Taxpayers on average pay about 60 per- cent41 of the premium. As explained by CRS, “Revenue Protection was the most frequently purchased policy type in 2019, accounting for almost 70 [percent] of policies purchased.”42 While there are certainly other subsidy programs besides ARC, PLC, and federal crop insurance, one program that deserves special mention is the federal sugar program. This program, unlike most other subsidy programs, intentionally tries to restrict supply43 and thereby drives up prices. The program costs consumers as much as $3.7 billion a year.44 When it comes to reforming subsidy programs, the next Administration will primarily have to look to legislative solutions. The next Administration should champion legislation that would: l Repeal the federal sugar program. The federal government should not be in the central planning business, and the sugar program is a prime example of harmful central planning. Its very purpose is to limit the sugar supply in order to increase prices. The program has a regressive effect, since lower-income households spend more of their money to meet food needs compared to higher income households.45 l Ideally, repeal the ARC and PLC programs. Farmers eligible to participate in ARC or PLC are generally already able to purchase federal crop insurance, policies that protect against shortfalls in expected revenue whether caused by lower prices or smaller harvests. The ARC program is especially egregious because farmers are being protected from shallow — 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,

Financial Regulatory Agencies

Minimal

Vector: 62%

Pages: 866-868AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill addresses agricultural relief through reallocation of Exchange Stabilization Funds and does not mention or implement any of the SEC or CFTC regulatory reforms specified in the Project 2025 Financial Regulatory Agencies section."

— 833 — Financial Regulatory Agencies l Eliminate all administrative proceedings (APs) within the SEC except for stop orders related to defective registration statements. The SEC enforcement system does not need to have both district court cases and APs. Alternatively, respondents should be allowed to elect whether an adjudication occurs in the SEC’s administrative law court or an ordinary Article III federal court.24 l End the practice of delegating the decision to initiate an enforcement case. The SEC Chairman—and possibly the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO)—should study whether other Commission delegation of authority to staff should be narrowed and whether sunsetting of such delegation of authority should be required. Congress should: l Require an Inspector General’s (or possibly a GAO) report regarding SEC information technology spending and contracting. Spending appears to be much too high, and IT contracting is poorly managed. l Statutorily limit the time for an investigation to two years with no extensions. Long investigations harm private parties and the quality of justice. With adequate management processes, the SEC should not need more than two years even for complicated matters. The SEC Chairman should: l Dramatically reduce the number of direct reports to the SEC Chairman. l Merge SEC offices that are performing similar functions. l Reduce the number of managers per employee. CFTC ADMINISTRATION AND IMPROVED COMMODITIES AND DERIVATIVES MARKETS Congress should: l Modernize the definition of commodity (which is now largely a laundry list of agricultural commodities)25 and clarify the treatment of digital assets. l Clarify through an express amendment to the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA)26 the circumstances that require a foreign swap trading platform to — 834 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise register with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) as a swap execution facility (SEF) under Sections 2(i)27 and 5h28 of the CEA. Currently, it is not clear whether having one or a small number of U.S. participants would require SEF registration under prior staff guidance, which has led foreign swap trading platforms to exclude all U.S. persons from their platforms or to go through the process of seeking an exemption from registration. l Amend Section 2 of the CEA to authorize the CFTC Chairman to remove the agency’s Executive Director without a Commission vote. l To augment Commissioners’ independence, establish funding amounts for the Commissioners’ offices by statute with adjustments for inflation, with no requirement for a Commissioner to obtain budget or expense approvals from the Chairman or the agency’s administrative staff. The CFTC should: l Allocate more resources to core agency functions rather than ancillary and support operations. l Replace the existing position limits rule, which reduces liquidity and makes markets more volatile, with further delegation of authority to the exchanges to set position limits and position accountability levels where appropriate for the relevant market. l Reduce overly prescriptive rules implementing the CFTC’s core principles. l Apply the definitions of “U.S. Person” and “Guarantee” in the CFTC’s 2020 rule on cross-border application of swaps regulations (2020 Cross-Border Rule)29 to the regulatory requirements that remain covered by the CFTC’s 2013 guidance on the subject (2013 Guidance).30 Currently, the definition of each of these foundational terms differs depending on whether the requirement in question is covered by the 2020 Cross-Border Rule or the 2013 Guidance. l Remove the regulatory categories of “affiliate conduit” and “foreign consolidated subsidiary” from the 2013 Guidance and the CFTC’s cross- border rule on margin for uncleared swaps,31 respectively. These categories were replaced by the concept of a “Significant Risk Subsidiary” for purposes of the 2020 Cross-Border Rule because of widespread market confusion and compliance difficulties arising from their broad and vague scope.

Department of Housing and Urban Development

Minimal

Vector: 62%

Pages: 548-550AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The American Farmers First Act focuses on redirecting Treasury funds to support farmers affected by trade disruptions, with no connection to housing policy, HUD operations, or the specific Project 2025 objectives related to housing market integrity, regulatory reform, or homelessness initiatives."

— 515 — Department of Housing and Urban Development 25. Process must prioritize where political leadership can implement administrative reforms through regulatory action and subregulatory guidance reforms. 26. China and other foreign nations should not be able to disrupt our nation’s housing markets, including by artificially driving up prices and reducing affordability and access to housing for Americans who are crowded out of the market by such market participation. 27. These initiatives are maintained under such designations as diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI); critical race theory (CRT); black, indigenous, Pacific Islander, and other people of color (BIPOC); and environmental, social, and governance (ESG). 28. At a minimum, these efforts duplicate what the federal government already collects and assesses; at worst, they institute arbitrary procedures in real estate appraisal practices that undermine integrity and perversely introduce arbitrary biases into what should be an unbiased system for determining financial value. 29. Revise regulatory and subregulatory guidance, where applicable within statutory authorities, that adds unnecessary delay and costs to the construction and development of new housing and has been estimated to account for about 40 percent of new housing unit costs in multifamily housing. 30. The Biden Administration has issued a proposed rule to replace the Trump Administration’s “Preserving Community and Neighborhood Choice” rule that had repealed earlier rules expanding AFFH enforcement. See U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Fair Housing, “Preserving Community and Neighborhood Choice,” Final Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 85, No. 153 (August 7, 2020), pp. 47899–47912, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2020-08-07/pdf/2020-16320.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023), and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of the Secretary, “Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing,” Proposed Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 88, No. 27 (February 9, 2023), pp. 8516–8590, https://www. govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2015-07-16/pdf/2015-17032.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023). 31. Certain pilot initiatives may encourage greater take-up of loan products designed for faster equity accumulation, including loans with shorter terms and accelerated amortization schedules. In concept, the FHA’s Home Equity Accelerator Loan (HEAL) and Good Neighbor Next Door (GNND) pilot initiatives might lead to meaningful wealth generation for first-time buyers, but they should be available to all eligible households only when they do not arbitrarily discriminate based on race or other characteristics. 32. Housing supply does remain a problem in the U.S., but constructing more units at the low end of the market will not solve the problem. Investors and developers can deliver at more efficient cost new units that will allow for greater upward mobility of rental and ownership housing stock and better target increased construction of mid-tier rental units. Further, and more fundamental to the housing supply challenge in markets across the U.S., localities can consider revising land use, zoning, and building regulations that constrict new housing development, adding time delays and costs that impede construction. Federal housing policy should get out of the way where possible and minimize the distortive impact that stimulating greater demand through loose lending can have in driving up housing prices for households that are looking for affordable entry into the housing market. 33. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of the Secretary, “Housing and Community Development Act of 1980: Verification of Eligible Status,” Proposed Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 91 (May 10, 2019), pp. 20589–20595, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-05-10/pdf/2019-09566.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023). 34. Reforms should contemplate rent payment flexibilities, allow escrow savings, and set maximum term limits that can reduce implicit penalties for increasing household incomes over eligibility terms for housing assistance and reweight waiting-list prioritization for two-parent households. 35. Some PHAs have been able to implement work requirements and term limit policies in various congressionally authorized demonstration programs, notably the Moving to Work (MTW) demonstration program established in 1996 for 39 PHAs (Congress has since authorized another 100 PHAs) in which participating MTW PHAs were given authority to implement rent reforms, work requirements and other experimental policies in rental assistance programs along with flexibilities in the use of capital and operating appropriations. 36. The FSS program has a general five-year term with a possible two-year extension, which could be applied at the term limit for overall benefits, and certain PHAs have imposed five-year to seven-year term limits. Families in these programs build escrow savings during their term eligibility that helps to facilitate successful transitions to family self-sufficiency and unassisted housing. — 516 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 37. HUD should implement administrative changes in regulation and guidance and seek statutory authority to end all Housing First directives of Continuum of Care (CoC) grantees and contract homelessness providers in addition to establishing restrictions on local Housing First policies where HUD grant funds are used. 38. The U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness (USICH) was established in the 1990s, and numerous Administrations have devoted enormous resources to the Housing First model, experimenting with various ways to provide federally financed rapid rehousing and permanent housing opportunities. Housing First is a far-left idea premised on the belief that homelessness is primarily circumstantial rather than behavioral. The Housing First answer to homelessness is to give someone a house instead of attempting to understand the underlying causes of homelessness. Federal intervention centered on Housing First has failed to acknowledge that resolving the issue of homelessness is often a matter of resolving mental health and substance abuse challenges. Instead of the permanent supportive housing proffered by Housing First, a conservative Administration should shift to transitional housing with a focus on addressing the underlying issues that cause homelessness in the first place. 39. The Senate Low-Income First-Time Homebuyers (LIFT) Act would address this policy goal. See S. 2797, Low-Income First-Time Homebuyers Act of 2021 (LIFT Homebuyers Act of 2021), 117th Congress, introduced September 22, 2021, https://www.congress.gov/117/bills/s2797/BILLS-117s2797is.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023). 40. FHA did not facilitate the widespread use of 30-year mortgages until the 1950s when, interacting with Federal Reserve policies, federal agencies began broader adoption of the mortgages, which, despite lowering the monthly repayment terms, result in slow equity accumulation and wealth-building opportunities. 41. The Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 fundamentally revised the scope of federal regulation in the nation’s housing finance system, placing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac under the purview of a newly established Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) and establishing a Housing Trust Fund (HTF) that is administered in the HUD Office of Community Planning and Development. See H.R. 3221, Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008, Public Law No. 110-289, 110th Congress, July 30, 2008, https://www.congress. gov/110/plaws/publ289/PLAW-110publ289.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023). 42. Guiding questions: What reforms should be proposed that could be accomplished within five years? What reforms can be done administratively, and what reforms would need legislative authorization? Are there functions that HUD administers that could be achieved more effectively at another department or agency? What big-picture reforms should be proposed that might take more than five years that would reorganize HUD and its programs to meet the objectives in the vision or mission? What would occur in the absence of these public finance subsidies? How much crowd-out do these subsidies create in the market? Would America be a seriously underhoused nation without these subsidies? Who are the policies intended to benefit? What organizational changes must be made? 43. The Faircloth Amendment (Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998) amended the Housing Act of 1937 to maintain public housing units at 1999 levels, preventing housing authorities from maintaining more public housing than they did then. H.R. 4194, Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999, Public Law No. 105-276, 105th Congress, October 21, 1998, Title V, https://www.congress.gov/105/plaws/publ276/PLAW-105publ276.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023). In recent years, the statutory restriction on new construction of public housing units has been circumvented through some narrow uses of preservation programs such as the Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD) program, initially authorized in 2012 and reauthorized several times since under higher program unit conversion caps. Congress also provided paths for renewal and continuation of a portion of existing public housing; project/site-based housing stock (refinancing with long-term HAP contract commitments); and Section 8 units through the Multifamily Assisted Housing Reform and Affordability Act of 1997 (MAHRA). H.R. 2158, Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 1998, Public Law No. 105-65, 105th Congress, October 27, 1997, Title V, https://www.congress.gov/105/plaws/publ65/PLAW-105publ65.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023). 44. As the evolution of HUD rental assistance transitions away from the public housing model toward housing choice vouchers, there should be adequate landlord participation to ensure that the supply of housing units for rent in these programs meets the demand for rent among eligible tenants. This issue has been addressed in various ways, including by a task force instituted at the department during the Trump Administration, but could likely remain a challenge in the administration of the program.

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. McClain Delaney, April

SCALE Biology Act

119/hr/8981

Protecting Agricultural Borrower Information Act

119/hr/5150

Improving SCRA Benefit Utilization Act

119/hr/3159

Back to All Bills