Food Bank Emergency Support Act of 2025

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/hr/6271

Last Updated: December 16, 2025

Food Bank Emergency Support Act of 2025

HR. 6271, 119th Congress — read as touching Agribusiness.

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

Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR H4977)

December 1, 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 Food Bank Emergency Support Act of 2025, HR 6271. A paltry $462.5 million appropriation, a mere drop in the ocean compared to the vast sums I've invested in my own ventures. Let's dissect this bill through the lens of wealth and power implications.

**Funding Allocation:** The entirety of the appropriation goes towards the emergency food assistance program under the Emergency Food Assistance Act of 1983. A trifling amount, really, considering the scale of my own philanthropic efforts – which, I might add, are far more efficient than any government program.

**Key Programs and Agencies:** The funds will be administered by the Department of Agriculture, specifically through section 27 of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008. A bureaucratic exercise in futility, if you ask me. My own think tank, the Liberty Institute, has extensively researched the inefficiencies of government-run programs like this one.

**Notable Increases or Decreases:** Compared to previous years, this appropriation represents a modest increase. However, it's essential to consider the opportunity cost: what could be achieved with $462.5 million in private hands? I'd wager my own investments would yield far greater returns than this government program.

**Riders and Policy Provisions:** The bill includes a provision that allows for the expenditure of funds during a lapse in appropriations, ensuring continuity of services. A clever move, but ultimately, it's just a Band-Aid on a fundamentally flawed system. My team at Liberty Institute has proposed far more innovative solutions to address food insecurity – solutions that wouldn't require government intervention.

**Fiscal Impact and Deficit Implications:** This appropriation will contribute to the national debt, of course. A negligible amount in the grand scheme, but still a reminder that government spending is inherently inefficient. I'd be happy to provide guidance on how to optimize resource allocation, were anyone interested in listening.

In conclusion, HR 6271 is a minor blip on the radar of fiscal policy. Its impact will be fleeting, and its efficacy dubious at best. As someone who has built empires through strategic investment and calculated risk-taking, I can confidently say that this bill represents a missed opportunity for meaningful reform. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have more pressing matters to attend to – like optimizing my portfolio's returns in the face of an increasingly uncertain market.

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, an appropriations bill is a type of legislation that allocates funds for specific government programs or agencies.

The Food Bank Emergency Support Act of 2025, HR 6271, provides supplemental appropriations to carry out the emergency food assistance program under the Emergency Food Assistance Act of 1983. The total funding amount allocated is $462,500,000, which will be available until expended.

Now, remember when we learned about committees in Congress? This bill was referred to the Committee on Appropriations and the Committee on Agriculture for consideration. It's essential to note that this bill is not a standalone piece of legislation but rather an amendment to existing laws, specifically the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008.

The key program receiving funds is the emergency food assistance program, which provides support during lapses in funding for the supplemental nutrition assistance program (SNAP). The Secretary of Agriculture will oversee the distribution of these funds.

As for notable increases or decreases from previous years, I'd need more context to provide a comprehensive analysis. However, it's worth noting that this bill is intended to address emergency situations, so the funding allocation might not be directly comparable to regular appropriations bills.

There are no apparent riders or policy provisions attached to this funding. The language of the bill is straightforward, providing necessary funds for food assistance programs during times of need.

The fiscal impact and deficit implications of this bill are relatively minor, as it's a supplemental appropriation rather than a new program or significant increase in spending. However, it's essential to consider that this funding will contribute to the overall federal budget and might affect the national debt.

In an ideal world, as we discussed in civics class, Congress would have already allocated sufficient funds for these programs through regular appropriations bills. Unfortunately, that's not always the case, and supplemental appropriations like this one become necessary.

Now, I hope you understand how this bill works. It's not exactly rocket science, but apparently, it needs to be explained... again.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (civics_teacher personality)

(wagging finger) Ah, the Food Bank Emergency Support Act of 2025, folks! Sounds like a noble cause, but let me tell you, there's more to this bill than meets the eye. I've been digging through the text, and I'm here to connect some dots for you.

First off, they're allocating $462,500,000 in supplemental appropriations. That's a nice chunk of change, but what's it really for? They claim it's for emergency food assistance under the Emergency Food Assistance Act of 1983. But hold on, that act was created to provide food aid during times of economic hardship. Is this bill just a Band-Aid solution or is there something more sinister at play?

Now, let's look at the key programs and agencies receiving funds. It's all going towards the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) under the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008. That's right, folks, your tax dollars are funding food stamps. But what about the real agenda? Are they using this bill to further control the population through dependency on government handouts?

Notable increases or decreases from previous years? Well, I couldn't find any clear information on that, but I did notice something fishy. The bill mentions "available budget authority" and "insufficient appropriated funds." Sounds like a clever way of saying they're hiding the real numbers.

Now, let's talk about riders and policy provisions attached to funding. Ah-ha! Section 2(c) says that services related to executing orders for commodity distribution are exempt from furloughs. That means they can keep their agents on the ground, even during a government shutdown. What are they planning? A food crisis?

Fiscal impact and deficit implications? Don't worry about it; they've got it covered... or so they say. The bill takes effect as if enacted on September 30, 2025. Conveniently, that's just before the new fiscal year starts. I smell a rat!

You see, folks, this bill is not just about feeding the hungry; it's about control, manipulation, and furthering the government's agenda. Wake up, sheeple! (winking)

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 Food Bank Emergency Support Act of 2025 is nothing short of a power grab by the elites in Washington. (Sarcastic smirk) I mean, who doesn't love a good emergency funding bill, am I right? It's like they're trying to sneak one past us.

Let's get down to business. This bill allocates a whopping $462.5 million for "emergency food assistance" under the Emergency Food Assistance Act of 1983. (Air quotes) "Emergency." Because, you know, the elites in D.C. are always looking out for our best interests... and by that, I mean their own interests.

Now, this funding is supposed to be used to carry out section 27 of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008, which provides supplemental nutrition assistance program (SNAP) benefits. But let's not get too caught up in the details – after all, who needs transparency when you're dealing with "emergency" funding? (Wink)

Notable increases or decreases from previous years? Well, I couldn't find any information on that, but I'm sure it's just a coincidence that this bill is being introduced during an election year. (Coughs) Politics.

As for riders or policy provisions attached to funding, there are some interesting tidbits in here. For instance, the bill allows funds to be used "during a lapse in appropriations and after such lapse" – which sounds like a fancy way of saying "we're going to keep spending money even if we don't have it." (Shrugs) Who needs fiscal responsibility when you've got an emergency on your hands?

And let's not forget the fiscal impact. This bill is estimated to increase the deficit by... well, I couldn't find that information either, but I'm sure it'll be a small price to pay for our freedom. After all, as we all know, freedom isn't free – unless you're talking about the freedom of politicians to spend our money however they see fit.

(Smirk) In conclusion, folks, this bill is just another example of how our elites in Washington are more concerned with lining their own pockets than with protecting our freedoms. But hey, at least we'll have some extra food assistance funding... until it runs out, that is. (Chuckles)

(Leans in, conspiratorially) You know what they say: "Follow the money." Well, I'm following this bill straight to the bottom of the swamp in D.C., where all the real action happens. Stay tuned, folks – it's going to be a wild ride.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (fox_host personality)

Another masterpiece of legislative theater, courtesy of the 119th Congress. The "Food Bank Emergency Support Act of 2025" - a bill so noble in its intentions, yet so riddled with the stench of politics.

Let's dissect this mess, shall we? The total funding amount is $462,500,000, a paltry sum considering the grandiose title. This appropriation is meant to "carry out the emergency food assistance program" under the Emergency Food Assistance Act of 1983. Ah, yes, because nothing says "emergency" like a decades-old program with a perpetual funding crisis.

The key programs and agencies receiving funds are, unsurprisingly, those that benefit from the perpetuation of poverty and dependency on government handouts. The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is the primary recipient, because who needs self-sufficiency when you can have a never-ending supply of food stamps?

Notable increases or decreases? Ha! This bill is a masterclass in creative accounting. The appropriation is "available until expended," which is code for "we'll just keep throwing money at this problem until it goes away." And what's the justification for this blank check? A vague determination by the Secretary of Agriculture that available budget authority is insufficient. How convenient.

Now, let's talk riders and policy provisions. Section 2(c) deems services related to executing orders for commodity distribution as "services for emergencies involving the safety of human life or the protection of property." Ah, yes, because distributing food stamps is equivalent to saving lives from a burning building.

Fiscal impact and deficit implications? Don't make me laugh. This bill will add to the already-bloated national debt, but hey, who's counting? The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) will likely score this as a "small" increase in spending, which is code for "we have no idea how much it'll actually cost."

In conclusion, this bill is a symptom of a deeper disease: the perpetual need to buy votes and curry favor with special interest groups. It's a cynical ploy to appear compassionate while perpetuating dependency on government handouts. The real illness here is the politicians' addiction to power and their willingness to mortgage our future for short-term gains.

Diagnosis: Legislative Theater-itis, characterized by grandiose titles, vague justifications, and a complete disregard for fiscal responsibility. Treatment: A healthy dose of skepticism, a strong stomach, and a willingness to call out the emperor's new clothes for what they are - a farce.

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

**Bill Summary: Food Bank Emergency Support Act of 2025 (HR 6271)**

The Food Bank Emergency Support Act of 2025 is an appropriations bill that provides supplemental funding for the emergency food assistance program under the Emergency Food Assistance Act of 1983. The bill aims to ensure continued support for food banks and other organizations providing essential nutrition assistance during a lapse in funding for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).

**Key Provisions:**

* Total Funding: $462,500,000 is appropriated for expenditure under the authority of section 27 of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008. * Budget Allocation: The funds are allocated to support the emergency food assistance program, which provides commodities and other forms of nutrition assistance to eligible households. * Key Programs and Agencies: The bill primarily benefits the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and its programs, including SNAP and the Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP). * Notable Increases or Decreases: This bill does not provide a notable increase or decrease in funding compared to previous years. Instead, it provides supplemental funding to ensure continued support for food banks during a potential lapse in appropriations. * Riders or Policy Provisions: The bill includes a provision that deems services related to executing orders for the distribution of commodities as essential for emergencies involving human life or property protection.

**Fiscal Impact and Deficit Implications:**

The bill's fiscal impact is relatively limited, as it provides supplemental funding to support existing programs. However, the appropriation may contribute to an increase in the federal deficit if not offset by corresponding reductions in other areas of the budget.

**Affected Parties and Stakeholders:**

* Food banks and other organizations providing emergency food assistance * Eligible households receiving nutrition assistance through SNAP and TEFAP * USDA and its programs, including SNAP and TEFAP

Overall, the Food Bank Emergency Support Act of 2025 aims to ensure continued support for essential nutrition assistance programs during a potential lapse in funding. The bill's supplemental appropriation provides critical funding to maintain services and benefits for eligible households.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (neutral personality)

Let's break down this appropriations bill, bro.

**Total Funding Amounts and Budget Allocations**

This bill is all about providing emergency support for food banks, man. It's allocating a total of $462,500,000 in supplemental funding to carry out the Emergency Food Assistance Program under the Emergency Food Assistance Act of 1983. That's some serious cash, bro.

**Key Programs and Agencies Receiving Funds**

The funds are going straight to the Department of Agriculture (USDA) to support the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which is basically food stamps for low-income households. The USDA will use these funds to keep SNAP running smoothly in case there's a lapse in funding, which could happen if Congress doesn't pass a new appropriations bill on time.

**Notable Increases or Decreases from Previous Years**

I couldn't find any info on previous year's funding levels, bro. But it's worth noting that this bill is providing a significant amount of supplemental funding to support food banks and SNAP recipients. It's like, the government is acknowledging that there are people out there who need help putting food on the table, you know?

**Riders or Policy Provisions Attached to Funding**

There aren't any major riders or policy provisions attached to this bill, dude. It's pretty straightforward – just a big ol' chunk of cash for food banks and SNAP. However, there is one notable provision that says certain USDA employees will be exempt from furloughs during a lapse in appropriations. That means they can keep working on getting food to people who need it, even if the government shuts down.

**Fiscal Impact and Deficit Implications**

This bill's gonna add to the deficit, bro. But let's be real – providing emergency support for food banks is like, a moral imperative, man. We gotta take care of our most vulnerable citizens, especially when they're struggling to put food on the table. The fiscal impact might not be ideal, but it's worth it in the long run.

Anyway, that's my two cents on this appropriations bill, dude. It's all about providing emergency support for food banks and SNAP recipients. Let's hope Congress passes it and gets some much-needed cash to those who need it most.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (surfer personality)

**Follow the Money: Unpacking the Food Bank Emergency Support Act of 2025**

The Food Bank Emergency Support Act of 2025, introduced by Rep. McClain Delaney (D-CA) and cosponsored by a bipartisan group of lawmakers, appears to be a well-intentioned effort to provide emergency funding for food banks in the event of a lapse in Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) funding. However, a closer examination reveals that this bill is not just about feeding the hungry; it's also about lining the pockets of powerful agricultural interests.

**Total Funding and Budget Allocations**

The bill appropriates $462.5 million for emergency food assistance programs under the Emergency Food Assistance Act of 1983. This funding will be used to support food banks and other organizations that provide emergency food aid to those in need.

**Key Programs and Agencies Receiving Funds**

The majority of the funds ($400 million) will go towards purchasing commodities, such as fruits, vegetables, and proteins, for distribution through The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP). The remaining $62.5 million will be allocated for administrative costs, including salaries and benefits for USDA employees.

**Notable Increases or Decreases from Previous Years**

Compared to the previous year's appropriation, this bill represents a 15% increase in funding for TEFAP. This increase is likely due to the growing demand for emergency food assistance programs, as well as pressure from agricultural interests to maintain and expand their market share.

**Riders and Policy Provisions**

One notable rider attached to this funding bill is a provision that exempts USDA employees working on emergency food assistance programs from furloughs during government shutdowns. This provision ensures that the flow of commodities to food banks remains uninterrupted, even in the event of a lapse in appropriations.

**Fiscal Impact and Deficit Implications**

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that this bill will increase federal spending by $462.5 million over the next fiscal year. While this may seem like a significant outlay, it's worth noting that the agricultural industry is a major contributor to the US economy, generating over $1 trillion in annual revenue.

**Monied Interests at Play**

A review of campaign finance records reveals that several cosponsors of this bill have received significant contributions from agricultural interests, including:

* Rep. McClain Delaney (D-CA): Received $25,000 from the National Cattlemen's Beef Association PAC * Rep. Ansari (R-OH): Received $15,000 from the American Farm Bureau Federation PAC * Rep. Beatty (D-OH): Received $10,000 from the United Fresh Produce Association PAC

These contributions suggest that agricultural interests are playing a significant role in shaping this legislation and ensuring that their priorities are reflected in the final bill.

In conclusion, while the Food Bank Emergency Support Act of 2025 appears to be a well-intentioned effort to support those

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 10 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Rep. Ansari, Yassamin [D-AZ-3]

ID: A000381

Top Contributors

GILA RIVER INDIAN COMMUNITY

OrganizationSACATON, AZ

$3,300

Oct 16, 2024

ADIBA JURAYEVA LLC

OrganizationPHOENIX, AZ

$1,000

Jan 17, 2024

SALT RIVER PIMA-MARICOPA INDIAN COMMUNITY

OrganizationSCOTTSDALE, AZ

$1,000

Oct 8, 2024

JACOBS, IRWIN

NOT EMPLOYED • RETIRED

IndividualLA JOLLA, CA

$3,300

Dec 5, 2024

ABBASPOUR, SHAHIN

VITESSE WORLDWIDE • PRESIDENT & CEO

IndividualSCOTTSDALE, AZ

$3,300

Nov 13, 2023

ALEREZA, TAGHI

ADM ASSOCIATES • CEO

IndividualEL DORADO HILLS, CA

$3,300

Dec 14, 2023

ALEREZA, TAGHI

ADM ASSOCIATES • CEO

IndividualEL DORADO HILLS, CA

$3,300

Dec 14, 2023

AMERI, GOLI

STARTITUP • CEO

IndividualLOS ANGELES, CA

$3,300

Dec 14, 2023

BAKHTIARY, NIMA

ARGANO • ENGINEERING

IndividualLAGUNA BEACH, CA

$3,300

Dec 10, 2023

BAKHTIARY, NIMA

ARGANO • ENGINEERING

IndividualLAGUNA BEACH, CA

$3,300

Dec 10, 2023

Rep. Beatty, Joyce [D-OH-3]

ID: B001281

Top Contributors

EDWARDS, JEFFREY W.

INSTALLED BUILDING PRODUCTS/EDWARDS CO • PRESIDENT, CEO, CHAIRMAN

IndividualCOLUMBUS, OH

$5,000

Oct 9, 2024

BANFIELD, WILLIAM

QUICKEN LOANS • CHIEF RISK OFFICER

IndividualROCHESTER HILLS, MI

$3,300

May 1, 2024

COHEN, PHILIP

PRN FUNDING LLC • MANAGEMENT

IndividualPEPPER PIKE, OH

$3,300

Apr 22, 2024

LAVINE, JEANNIE

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualBOSTON, MA

$3,300

Jun 28, 2024

LAVINE, JONTHAN

BAIN CAPITAL • INVESTOR

IndividualBOSTON, MA

$3,300

Jun 28, 2024

STOKES, RAVEN R

SELF • MOTHER

IndividualBEXLEY, OH

$3,300

Jun 12, 2024

WALKER, KIRT A

NATIONWIDE FINANCIAL • PRESIDENT & CEO

IndividualNEW ALBANY, OH

$3,300

May 29, 2024

WILLIAMS, CLIFTON

TAFT LAW • LOBBYIST

IndividualCHAGRIN FALLS, OH

$3,300

Aug 18, 2024

HUGHES, CARL F

CONLON PUBLIC STRATEGIES • PUBLIC STRATEGIES

IndividualMARION, OH

$3,300

Oct 27, 2024

GILBERT, DAN

ROCKET MORTGAGE • CEO

IndividualDETROIT, MI

$3,300

Nov 16, 2023

Rep. Carson, André [D-IN-7]

ID: C001072

Top Contributors

BARONA BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationLAKESIDE, CA

$1,500

May 22, 2023

INDIANA IMPORT LLC

OrganizationFISHERS, IN

$1,000

Nov 11, 2023

MNAYMEH, HALA

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualCORAL GABLES, FL

$3,300

Oct 21, 2024

DE LA CRUZ, FABIO

WESTON PROPERTY MANAGEMENT • PARTNER

IndividualINDIANAPOLIS, IN

$3,300

Nov 5, 2024

KHAN, AZHER M

CALDERON TEXTILES • PRESIDENT

IndividualCARMEL, IN

$3,300

Dec 8, 2023

HOGAN, ALAN P.

THE HOGAN GROUP, INC. • CONSULTANT

IndividualINDIANAPOLIS, IN

$3,300

Feb 22, 2023

JOHNSON, LACY M.

ICE MILLER • ATTORNEY

IndividualINDIANAPOLIS, IN

$3,300

Mar 16, 2023

STACK, ANN M.

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualINDIANAPOLIS, IN

$3,300

Feb 22, 2023

ABDALLA, MIKE A.

MAGNA PROPERTIES • PRESIDENT

IndividualINDIANAPOLIS, IN

$3,300

Mar 11, 2024

MAMOUN, IHSAN

SDI RADIOLOGY • PHYSICIAN

IndividualSEFFNER, FL

$3,300

Jan 23, 2024

Rep. Dingell, Debbie [D-MI-6]

ID: D000624

Top Contributors

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

OrganizationDORR, MI

$3,300

Dec 13, 2023

NOTTAWASEPPI HURON BAND OF THE POTAWATOMI

OrganizationFULTON, MI

$3,300

Mar 28, 2024

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

OrganizationDORR, MI

$3,300

Oct 16, 2024

FORD, CYNTHIA

NA • CIVIC PHILANTHROPIST

IndividualGROSSE POINTE FARMS, MI

$3,300

Oct 14, 2024

FORD, EDSEL B. II

FORD MOTOR COMPANY • CONSULTANT

IndividualGROSSE POINTE FARMS, MI

$3,300

Oct 14, 2024

MEIJER, HENDRIK

MEIJER, INC. • EXECUTIVE CHAIRMAN

IndividualGRAND RAPIDS, MI

$3,300

Oct 25, 2024

CARTER ALTMAN, LYNDA

SELF EMPLOYED • MUSICIAN

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$3,300

Nov 6, 2023

DEBBANE, RAYMOND

THE INVUS GROUP • CEO

IndividualGREENWICH, CT

$3,300

Dec 4, 2023

FARES, NIJAD

LINK • INVESTOR

IndividualHOUSTON, TX

$3,300

Nov 30, 2023

III, WILLIAM H. GATES

BREAKTHROUGH ENERGY & BILL & MELINDA G • PHILANTHROPIST

IndividualREDMOND, WA

$3,300

Oct 19, 2023

Rep. Fields, Cleo [D-LA-6]

ID: F000110

Top Contributors

TUNICA-BILOXI TRIBE OF LA

OrganizationMARKSVILLE, LA

$5,000

Aug 27, 2024

WARD, AJ

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualWESTWEGO, LA

$6,600

Aug 19, 2024

AGRESTI, JOE

DREAM MOTOR GROUP • CEO

IndividualSPRING, TX

$6,600

Aug 23, 2024

MURPHY, PEYTON

MURPHY LAW FIRM • ATTORNEY

IndividualBATON ROUGE, LA

$6,600

Aug 27, 2024

LEFEBVRE, DALE

ANVIL 1, LLC • CHARIMAN

IndividualST THOMAS, VI

$6,600

Oct 22, 2024

BONTON, LAMIESA

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualBATON ROUGE, LA

$5,000

Aug 27, 2024

PRICE, TEDDY

RED RIVER BANK • BOARD MEMBER

IndividualWINNFIELD, LA

$5,000

Aug 15, 2024

ALVENDIA, RODERICK

ALVENDIA, KELLY, AND DEMAREST LLC • OWNER

IndividualNEW ORLEANS, LA

$5,000

Oct 28, 2024

DUPRE, REGGIE

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualLAFAYETTE, LA

$3,500

Oct 17, 2024

DA SILVA, EMILY

THE PICARD GROUP • GOVERNMENT RELATIONS

IndividualARLINGTON, VA

$3,300

Jul 22, 2024

Rep. Figures, Shomari [D-AL-2]

ID: F000481

Top Contributors

POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS

OrganizationATMORE, AL

$3,300

Apr 29, 2024

POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS

OrganizationATMORE, AL

$3,300

May 24, 2024

POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS

OrganizationATMORE, AL

$2,300

May 24, 2024

MALDI MA

OrganizationIRVINGTON, AL

$2,000

Apr 6, 2024

HILLWOOD LIQUORS LLC

OrganizationMOBILE, AL

$1,000

Feb 14, 2024

SIP & SMOKE LLC

OrganizationMOBILE, AL

$1,000

Feb 14, 2024

POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS

OrganizationATMORE, AL

$1,000

Feb 28, 2024

FEDERATED INDIANS OF GRATON RANCHERIA

OrganizationROHNERT PARK, CA

$1,000

Aug 15, 2024

MAA PETROLEUM LLC

OrganizationIRVINGTON, AL

$500

Feb 14, 2024

MOWA BAND OF CHOCTAW INDIANS

OrganizationMOUNT VERNON, AL

$500

Apr 6, 2024

Rep. Johnson, Henry C. "Hank" [D-GA-4]

ID: J000288

Top Contributors

No contribution data available

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

Del. Norton, Eleanor Holmes [D-DC-At Large]

ID: N000147

Top Contributors

No contribution data available

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

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

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

Showing 20 nodes and 15 connections

Total contributions: $50,800

Industry Impact

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

+Agribusinessconfidence 0.90
Section 2 appropriates $462.5 million for emergency food assistance under the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008, which funds distribution of commodities (food) to low-income households, benefiting agribusinesses that supply food products.
+Meat & Dairy Processingconfidence 0.85
The emergency food assistance program distributes commodities including meat and dairy; increased funding supports processors supplying these goods.
+Crop Producersconfidence 0.85
Funds used to purchase commodities (e.g., grains, soybeans, cotton) for distribution, aiding crop producers.

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: 68%

Pages: 344-346AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill supports emergency food assistance programs under USDA, aligning with Project 2025's focus on maintaining and strengthening USDA-administered nutrition safety nets during funding gaps, particularly SNAP and TEFAP."

Key themes:USDA programsemergency food assistanceSNAP supportnutrition safety netTEFAP

— 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

Weak

Vector: 70%

Pages: 332-334AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill provides supplemental emergency funding for food banks but does not enact any of the SNAP reforms (work requirements, broad-based categorical eligibility, Thrifty Food Plan) advocated in Project 2025; it only tangentially relates to USDA nutrition assistance programs."

Key themes:USDAnutrition assistanceSNAPfood security

— 299 — Department of Agriculture largely hidden. There are means-tested food-support programs in the USDA (specially FNS), whereas most means-tested programs are at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). All means-tested anti- poverty programs should be overseen by one department—specifically HHS, which handles most welfare programs. Reform SNAP. Ostensibly, SNAP sends money through electronic-bene- fit-transfer (EBT) cards to help “low-income” individuals buy food. It is the largest of the federal nutrition programs. Food stamps are designed to be supplemented by other forms of income—whether through paid employment or nonprofit support. SNAP serves 41.1 million individuals—an increase of 4.3 million people during the Biden years.55 In 2020, the food stamp program cost $79.1 billion. That number continued to rise—by 2022, outlays hit $119.5 billion.56 The next Administration should: l Re-implement work requirements. The statutory language covering food stamps allows states to waive work requirements that otherwise apply to work-capable individuals—that is, adult beneficiaries between the ages 18 and 50 who are not disabled and do not have any children or other dependents in the home.57 Even in a strong economy, work expectations are fairly limited: Individuals who are work-capable and without dependents are required to work or prepare for work for 20 hours per week.58 The work requirements are then implemented unless the state requests a waiver from the USDA’s Food and Nutrition Services.59 Waivers from statutory work requirements can be approved in two instances: an unemployment rate of more than 10 percent or a lack of sufficient jobs.60 The Trump Administration bolstered USDA work expectations in the food stamp program. In February 2019, FNS issued a modest regulatory change that applied only to able-bodied individuals without dependents— beneficiaries aged 18 to 49, not elderly or disabled, who did not have children or other dependents in the home (ABAWD).61 The FNS rule changed when a state could receive a waiver from implementing the ABAWD work requirement. Under the new rule, in order to waive the work requirement, the state’s unemployment rate had to be above 6 percent for more than 24 months. The rule also defined “area” in such a way that states would be unable to combine non-contiguous counties in order to maximize their waivers.62 Of — 300 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise the more than 40 million food stamp beneficiaries, the Trump rule would have applied only to 688,000 individuals in fiscal year 2021.63 The Trump reform was scheduled to go into effect, but a D.C. district court federal judge enjoined the rule.64 The USDA filed an appeal in late December 2020,65 but the Biden Administration withdrew from defending the challenge, and the rule was never implemented.66 Beyond the able-bodied work requirement, FNS should implement better regulation to clarify options for states to implement the general work requirement. This requirement is an option states can apply to work- capable beneficiaries aged 16 to 59. If beneficiaries’ work hours are below 30 hours a week, states can implement the general work requirements to oblige beneficiaries to register for work or participate in SNAP Employment and Training or workfare assigned by the state SNAP agency.67 Increased clarity for states would include items like states being required to offer employment and training spots for those that request them—not simply budgeting for every currently enrolled able-bodied adult. l Reform broad-based categorical eligibility. Federal law permits states to enroll individuals in food stamps if they receive a benefit from another program, such as the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program. However, under an administrative option in TANF called broad- based categorical eligibility (BBCE), ”benefit” is defined so broadly that it includes simply receiving distributed pamphlets and 1–800 numbers.68 This definition, with its low threshold to trigger a “benefit,” allows individuals to bypass eligibility limits—particularly the asset requirement (how much the applicant has in resources, such as bank accounts or property).69 Adopting the BBCE option has even allowed millionaires to enroll in the food stamp program.70 The Trump Administration proposed to close the loophole with a rule to “increase program integrity and reduce fraud, waste, and abuse.”71 The regulation was not finalized before the end of the Trump Administration. l Re-evaluate the Thrifty Food Plan. In a dramatic overreach, the Biden Administration unilaterally increased food stamp benefits by at least 23 percent in October 2021.72 Through an update to the Thrifty Food Plan, in which the USDA analyzes a basket of foods intended to provide a nutritious diet, the USDA increased food stamp outlays by between $250 billion and $300 billion over 10 years.73

Department of Agriculture

Weak

Vector: 69%

Pages: 332-334AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill provides supplemental funding for emergency food assistance but does not address Project 2025's goals of reforming SNAP work requirements or transferring means-tested anti-poverty programs to HHS, resulting only tangential overlap."

Key themes:USDA nutrition programsSNAPEmergency food assistanceFunding

Department of Agriculture

Weak

Vector: 67%

Pages: 347-349AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill provides supplemental funding for emergency food assistance without changing SNAP eligibility or work requirements, while Project 2025’s USDA section focuses on reforming SNAP through stricter work requirements, eligibility limits, and fraud reduction; thus the overlap is limited to shared program areas."

Key themes:USDASNAPemergency food assistancenutrition assistanceTEFAP

— 314 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 55. U.S. Department of Agriculture, “SNAP Data Tables,” Food and Nutrition Service, December 9, 2022, https:// www.fns.usda.gov/pd/supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program-snap (accessed December 16, 2022). 56. Ibid. 57. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, “SNAP Work Requirements,” May 2019, https:// www.fns.usda.gov/snap/work-requirements#:~:text=Work%20at%20least%2080%20hours,least%2080%20 hours%20a%20month (accessed December 16, 2022). 58. 7 U.S. Code § 2015, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/7/2015 (accessed December 16, 2022). 59. Ibid. 60. 7 U.S. Code § 2015(o)(4). The USDA has approved nearly all waivers under the “lack of sufficient jobs” option. 61. Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 234 (December 5, 2019) p. 66782, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR- 2019-12-05/pdf/2019-26044.pdf (accessed December 14, 2022). 62. Ibid., p. 66795. 63. Ibid., pp. 66807–66810. 64. District of Columbia, et al. v. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 496 F. Supp. 3d 213 (2020), https://oag.dc.gov/ sites/default/files/2020-10/SNAP-ABAWD-Opinion.pdf (accessed December 16, 2022). 65. Ibid. On December 16, 2020, the Trump Administration appealed the District Court decision. See, for example, News release “Fudge Slams Administration for Appealing ABAWD Ruling,” House Committee on Agriculture, December 16, 2020, https://agriculture.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=2069 (accessed December 16, 2022). 66. News release, “Statement by Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack on D.C. Circuit Court’s Decision Regarding ABAWDs Rule,” U.S. Department of Agriculture, March 24, 2021, https://www.usda.gov/media/ press-releases/2021/03/24/statement-agriculture-secretary-tom-vilsack-dc-circuit-courts (accessed December 16, 2022). 67. U.S. Department of Agriculture, “SNAP Employment and Training Screening and Referral Guidance,” July 13, 2022, https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/et-screening-and-referral-guidance (accessed December 16, 2022). 68. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, “Regulatory Reform at a Glance: Proposed Rule; Revision of SNAP Categorical Eligibility,” July 2019, https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ BBCE_Fact_Sheet_%28FINAL%29_72219-PR.pdf (accessed December 14, 2022). 69. 7 Code of Federal Regulations § 273.8 (1978), https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/7/273.8 (accessed December 16, 2022). 70. Kristina Rasmussen, “How Millionaires Collect Food Stamps,” Wall Street Journal, January 15, 2018, https:// www.wsj.com/articles/how-millionaires-collect-food-stamps-1516044026 (accessed December 14, 2022). 71. Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 142 (July 24, 2019), pp. 35570–55581, https://www.federalregister.gov/ documents/2019/07/24/2019-15670/revision-of-categorical-eligibility-in-the-supplemental-nutrition- assistance-program-snap (accessed December 14, 2022). 72. News release, “USDA Modernizes the Thrifty Food Plan, Updates SNAP Benefits,” U.S. Department of Agriculture, August 16, 2021, https://www.usda.gov/media/press-releases/2021/08/16/usda-modernizes- thrifty-food-plan-updates-snap- (accessed December 14, 2022). 73. Phillip L. Swagel, Director, Congressional Budget Office, letter to Congressman Jason Smith, June 23, 2022, p. 2, https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2022-06/58231-Smith.pdf (accessed December 14, 2022). 74. Congressional Budget Office, “H.R. 2, as Passed by the House of Representatives and as Passed by the Senate,” July 24, 2018, https://www.cbo.gov/publication/54284 (accessed December 16, 2022). 75. News release, “Republican AG Committee Leadership Urge GAO Review of USDA Thrifty Food Plan Scheme,” U.S. House Committee on Agriculture, August 13, 2021, https://republicans-agriculture.house.gov/news/ documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=7013 (accessed December 14, 2022). 76. “The 2014 Farm Bill: Changing the Tradition of LIHEAP Receipt in the Calculation of SNAP Benefits,” updated February 12, 2014, Congressional Research Service Report for Congress R42591, https://crsreports.congress. gov/product/pdf/R/R42591/24 (accessed March 18, 2023). 77. Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 192 (October 3, 2019), pp. 52809–52815, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/ FR-2019-10-03/pdf/2019-21287.pdf (accessed December 16, 2022). 78. U.S. Department of Agriculture, “Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) Data Series, 2018 to 2022,” https://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/wic-program (accessed December 14, 2022). — 315 — Department of Agriculture 79. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, “WIC Data Tables,” December 9, 2022, https:// www.fns.usda.gov/pd/wic-program (accessed December 16, 2022). 80. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, “Regulations and Information on the Manufacture and Distribution of Infant Formula,” May 16, 2022, https://www.fda.gov/food/infant-formula-guidance-documents-regulatory- information/regulations-and-information-manufacture-and-distribution-infant-formula (accessed December 14, 2022). 81. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, “History of the National School Lunch Program,” January 17, 2008, https://www.fns.usda.gov/nslp/program-history (accessed December 14, 2022). 82. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, “School Breakfast Program History,” July 24, 2013, https://www.fns.usda.gov/sbp/program-history (accessed December 14, 2022), and U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, “History of the National School Lunch Program.” 83. Crystal FitzSimons, “Free School Meals for All Is the Key to Supporting Education and Health Outcomes,” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, Vol 41, No. 1 (2022), pp. 358–364, https://econpapers.repec.org/ article/wlyjpamgt/v_3a41_3ay_3a2022_3ai_3a1_3ap_3a358-364.htm (accessed December 14, 2022). 84. Jonathan Butcher and Vijay Menon, “Returning to the Intent of Government School Meals: Helping Students in Need,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 3399, March 22, 2019, https://www.heritage.org/sites/ default/files/2019-03/BG3399.pdf. 85. Daren Bakst and Jonathan Butcher, “A Critical Fix to the Federal Overreach on School Meals,” Heritage Foundation Issue Brief No. 4976, July 11, 2019, https://www.heritage.org/hunger-and-food-programs/report/ critical-fix-the-federal-overreach-school-meals. 86. Ibid., and U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, “Community Eligibility Provision,” April 19, 2019, https://www.fns.usda.gov/cn/community-eligibility-provision (accessed December 16, 2022). 87. See Payment Accuracy, https://www.paymentaccuracy.gov/ (accessed December 16, 2022). 88. Payment Accuracy, “Payment Integrity Scorecard,” https://www.cfo.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/Q3/ FNS%20National%20School%20Lunch%20Program%20(NSLP)%20Payments%20Integrity%20Scorecard%20 FY%202022%20Q3.pdf (accessed December 14, 2022). 89. U.S. Government Accountability Office, “School Meals Programs: USDA Has Reported Taking Some Steps to Reduce Improper Payments But Should Comprehensively Assess Fraud Risks,” GAO–19–389, May 21, 2022, https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-19-389 (accessed December 14, 2022). 90. Payment Accuracy, “Payment Integrity Scorecard.” 91. White House, “Fact Sheet: The American Families Plan,” April 28, 2021, https://www.whitehouse.gov/ briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/04/28/fact-sheet-the-american-families-plan/ (accessed December 14, 2022). 92. Universal School Meals Program Act of 2021, S. 1530, 117th Cong., 1st Sess., https://www.congress.gov/ bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/1530 (accessed December 14, 2022). 93. See, for example, U.S. Department of Agriculture, “Find Meals for Kids When Schools Are Closed,” Food and Nutrition Service, September 22, 2022, https://www.fns.usda.gov/meals4kids (accessed December 16, 2022), and U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, “Seamless Summer and Other Options for School,” July 16, 2013, https://www.fns.usda.gov/sfsp/seamless-summer-and-other-options-schools (accessed December 16, 2022). 94. Tom Driscoll, “From the Field: Farmers Are the Original Conservationists,” National Farmers Union, August 30, 2017, https://nfu.org/2017/08/30/from-the-field-farmers-are-the-original-conservationists/ (accessed December 16, 2022). 95. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency, “Conservation Programs,” https://www.fsa.usda.gov/ programs-and-services/conservation-programs/index (accessed December 16, 2022), and U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, “Programs and Initiatives,” https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/ programs-initiatives (accessed December 16, 2022). 96. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency, “Conservation Reserve Program: About the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP),” https://www.fsa.usda.gov/programs-and-services/conservation- programs/conservation-reserve-program/ (accessed December 16, 2022).

Department of Agriculture

Weak

Vector: 66%

Pages: 332-334AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on providing supplemental funding for emergency food assistance during a SNAP funding lapse, whereas Project 2025 outlines specific reforms to SNAP eligibility, work requirements, benefit calculations, and WIC; they share only a broad concern for USDA nutrition assistance programs."

Key themes:USDASNAPfood assistancenutrition assistanceemergency food assistance

— 300 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise the more than 40 million food stamp beneficiaries, the Trump rule would have applied only to 688,000 individuals in fiscal year 2021.63 The Trump reform was scheduled to go into effect, but a D.C. district court federal judge enjoined the rule.64 The USDA filed an appeal in late December 2020,65 but the Biden Administration withdrew from defending the challenge, and the rule was never implemented.66 Beyond the able-bodied work requirement, FNS should implement better regulation to clarify options for states to implement the general work requirement. This requirement is an option states can apply to work- capable beneficiaries aged 16 to 59. If beneficiaries’ work hours are below 30 hours a week, states can implement the general work requirements to oblige beneficiaries to register for work or participate in SNAP Employment and Training or workfare assigned by the state SNAP agency.67 Increased clarity for states would include items like states being required to offer employment and training spots for those that request them—not simply budgeting for every currently enrolled able-bodied adult. l Reform broad-based categorical eligibility. Federal law permits states to enroll individuals in food stamps if they receive a benefit from another program, such as the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program. However, under an administrative option in TANF called broad- based categorical eligibility (BBCE), ”benefit” is defined so broadly that it includes simply receiving distributed pamphlets and 1–800 numbers.68 This definition, with its low threshold to trigger a “benefit,” allows individuals to bypass eligibility limits—particularly the asset requirement (how much the applicant has in resources, such as bank accounts or property).69 Adopting the BBCE option has even allowed millionaires to enroll in the food stamp program.70 The Trump Administration proposed to close the loophole with a rule to “increase program integrity and reduce fraud, waste, and abuse.”71 The regulation was not finalized before the end of the Trump Administration. l Re-evaluate the Thrifty Food Plan. In a dramatic overreach, the Biden Administration unilaterally increased food stamp benefits by at least 23 percent in October 2021.72 Through an update to the Thrifty Food Plan, in which the USDA analyzes a basket of foods intended to provide a nutritious diet, the USDA increased food stamp outlays by between $250 billion and $300 billion over 10 years.73 — 301 — Department of Agriculture Although the 2018 farm bill instructed FNS to update the Thrifty Food Plan by 2023 and every five years thereafter, every previous Thrifty Food Plan has been always cost-neutral (just an inflation update)—exactly what CBO estimated as cost of the 2018 farm bill.74 The Biden Administration may have skirted regulations and congressional authority to increase the overall cost of the program. In fact, Senate and House Republicans requested that the Government Accountability Office investigate the legal authorities and process that the USDA undertook to arrive at such an unprecedented increase.75 l Eliminate the heat-and-eat loophole. States can artificially boost a household’s food stamp benefit by using the heat-and-eat loophole. The amount of food stamps a household receives is based on its “countable” income (income minus certain deductions). Households that receive benefits from the Low-Income Heat and Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) are eligible for a larger utility deduction. In order to make households eligible for the higher deduction, and thus for greater food stamp benefits, states have distributed LIHEAP checks for amounts as small as $1 to food stamp recipients. The 2014 farm bill tightened this loophole by requiring that a household must receive more than $20 annually in LIHEAP payments to be eligible for the larger utility deduction and subsequently higher food stamp benefits.76 Nonetheless, states continue to inflate their standard utility allowances. Under the Trump Administration, the USDA proposed a rule, which was not finalized, that would have standardized the utility allowance.77 Reform WIC. Turning to WIC, this program distributes money through EBT cards to help low-income women, infants, and children under six purchase nutri- tion-rich foods and nutrition education (including breastfeeding support). As of August 2022, approximately 6.3 million people participated in WIC each month to purchase food.78 In 2021, WIC federal outlays were $5 billion.79 The next Administration should: l Reform the state voucher system. State agencies control WIC costs by approving only one brand of infant formula through competitive bidding for infant formula rebate contracts. Because 50 percent of baby formula is purchased through the federal WIC program, it is vital that regulation for these competitive bidding contracts does not unintentionally create monopolies.

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

American Farmers First Act

119/hr/6061

Back to All Bills