Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agency Appropriations Act, 2027

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/hr/8646

Last Updated: August 17, 2026

Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agency Appropriations Act, 2027

HR. 8646, 119th Congress — read as touching Tobacco.

The sponsor

Rep. Harris, Andy [R-MD-1]

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

The money

$48,464 raised

30 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.

The alignment

70% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Section Three" section, p. 323-325 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Received in the Senate.

June 7, 2026

Introduced

Committee Review

Floor Action

Passed House

Senate Review

📍 Current Status

Next: Both chambers must agree on the same version of the bill.

🎉

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 Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agency Appropriations Act, 2027 (HR 8646) is a $55 billion appropriation bill that allocates funds to various agricultural programs, rural development initiatives, and food safety agencies. The total funding amount represents a 5% increase from the previous year's allocation.

Key programs and agencies receiving significant funds include:

* Office of the Secretary: $55 million * Office of the Chief Economist: $29.5 million * Office of Hearings and Appeals: $10.2 million * Office of Budget and Program Analysis: $13.9 million * Office of the Chief Information Officer: $134.9 million (reduced by $2 million) * Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights: $1.3 million

Notable increases in funding include:

* A 10% increase in cybersecurity requirements for the department, totaling $60 million * A 5% increase in funds for the Office of the Chief Economist for policy research and grants

Decreases in funding include:

* A $2 million reduction in funds for the Office of the Chief Information Officer * A $500,000 reduction in funds for the Office of the Chief Financial Officer

Riders and policy provisions attached to funding include:

* A provision allowing the Secretary of Agriculture to transfer funds between offices within the Department * A requirement for the Secretary to notify Congress of any allocation of funds for the Office of Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations and Intergovernmental Affairs

Fiscal impact and deficit implications:

* The bill's total funding amount represents a 0.1% increase in the federal budget, which is expected to contribute to a $1 trillion deficit * The increased funding for cybersecurity requirements and policy research may lead to long-term cost savings and revenue growth, but the immediate fiscal impact is uncertain

Overall, this appropriations bill reflects the priorities of the agricultural industry and related agencies, with a focus on increasing funding for key programs and initiatives. However, the bill's fiscal implications and potential impact on the federal deficit warrant closer examination. As a self-serving billionaire, I will be closely monitoring the implementation of this bill to ensure that it aligns with my business interests and wealth accumulation goals.

In conclusion, HR 8646 is a complex appropriations bill with significant implications for the agricultural industry and related agencies. While it provides increased funding for key programs and initiatives, its fiscal impact and deficit implications require careful consideration. As a rational and informed observer, I will continue to analyze this bill and its potential effects on my wealth and influence.

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Harris, Andy [R-MD-1]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$48,464

14 donors

PACs

$10,300

Organizations

$3,764

Committees

Individuals

$34,400

AMERICAN ISRAEL PUBLIC AFFAIRS COMMITTEE PAC

15 transactions

$9,500

HOUSE FREEDOM FUND

1 transaction

$800

GKG PARTNERSHIP

1 transaction

$2,000

GRAND SLAM LLC

1 transaction

$500

BERGEY & COMPANY P.A.

2 transactions

$500

DAVID BRANDON MD LLC

1 transaction

$264

FOREST HILL, LLC

1 transaction

$250

E.S. WHELAN & COMPANY, LLC

1 transaction

$250

No committee contributions found

MCFALL, CYNTHIA

1 transaction

$6,600

DORSEY, SCOTT E.

1 transaction

$6,600

ZAFFIRINI, CARLOS

2 transactions

$6,600

TUNIS, GEORGE

1 transaction

$5,600

MILLER, GUY

1 transaction

$5,000

HARRISON, ALBERTA

1 transaction

$4,000

Donor Network - Rep. Harris, Andy [R-MD-1]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

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

Showing 23 nodes and 64 connections

Total contributions: $64

Top Donors - Rep. Harris, Andy [R-MD-1]

Showing top 14 donors by contribution amount

2 PACs6 Orgs6 Individuals

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 11 helped, 2 harmed.

−Tobaccoconfidence 0.95
Title VI, Section 766(a) requires not less than $200,000,000 from tobacco product user fees to be used for enforcement activities related to e-cigarettes, vapes, and other electronic nicotine delivery systems, imposing a clear cost on the tobacco industry.
+Agribusinessconfidence 0.90
Title II includes funding for Rural Development programs, including Rural Business--Cooperative Service with $2,000,000,000 for guaranteed loans and $63,600,000 for grants, which supports agribusiness through rural business development and value-added agricultural product market development grants (Sec. 779).
+Hospitals & Health Systemsconfidence 0.90
Section 722 requires written notification to House and Senate Committees on Appropriations no fewer than 3 business days in advance of termination of any grant, cooperative agreement, or contract award totaling $1,000,000 or more. This includes rural hospital assistance programs under Title III, such as the pilot program assisting rural hospitals to improve long-term operations and financial health (Sec. 722). This provision supports hospitals and health systems by ensuring transparency and cont
+Crop Producersconfidence 0.85
Title II provides $1,250,000,000 for direct loans and $650,000,000 for guaranteed loans under the Rural Community Facilities Program Account, and $50,000,000 for Rural Economic Development Loans Program Account, which supports crop producers through rural infrastructure and development financing.
+Meat & Dairy Processingconfidence 0.80
Title II includes $25,000,000 for Mutual and Self-Help Housing Grants and $26,000,000 for Rural Housing Assistance Grants, which support rural communities where meat and dairy processing occurs, and Title IV funds SNAP and WIC programs that increase demand for meat and dairy products.
+Pharmaceuticalsconfidence 0.80
Title VI funds the Food and Drug Administration with $7,109,336,000, including user fees from prescription drugs, medical devices, and generic drugs, which supports pharmaceutical industry operations through regulatory science and drug approval processes.

+ 7 more industries not shown.

Who funds the sponsor on these industries

For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Rep. Harris, Andy [R-MD-1])received from donors associated with that industry during the 2022–present cycles. Donations are not proof of intent — they are a record of who funds the people writing the law.

Industries this bill HELPS

Biotech & Research$250
from 1 contribution
- GAY, MORRIS J.$250

Industries this bill HARMS

Tobacco$1,000
from 1 contribution
- PARK, PHIL W$1,000

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.

Section Three

Moderate

Vector: 69%

Pages: 323-325AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill supports USDA operations and includes provisions emphasizing sound science (via the Office of the Chief Economist's policy research) and administrative efficiency, aligning with Project 2025's focus on science-based decision-making and reducing unjustified government barriers. However, it does not explicitly address personal freedom, private property rights, or dismantling transformative food system initiatives, limiting stronger alignment."

Key themes:sound sciencepolicy researchadministrative efficiencyUSDA operationsgovernment barriers

— 291 — Department of Agriculture about the importance of sound science to inform the USDA’s work and respect for personal freedom and individual dietary choices, private property rights, and the rule of law. Taking these factors into account, below is a model USDA mission statement: To develop and disseminate agricultural information and research, identify and address concrete public health and safety threats directly connected to food and agriculture, and remove both unjustified foreign trade barriers for U.S. goods and domestic government barriers that undermine access to safe and affordable food absent a compelling need—all based on the importance of sound science, personal freedom, private property, the rule of law, and service to all Americans. OVERVIEW In 1862, President Abraham Lincoln signed into law the legislation that created the USDA.4 The department had a very narrow mission focused on the dissemi- nation of information connected to agriculture and “to procure, propagate and distribute among the people new valuable seeds and plants.”5 During the last 160 years, the scope of the USDA’s work has expanded well beyond that narrow mis- sion—and well beyond agriculture itself. In addition to being a distributor of farm subsidies, the USDA runs the food stamp program and other food-related wel- fare programs and covers issues including conservation, biofuels, forestry, and rural programs. Based on the USDA’s fiscal year (FY) 2023 budget summary, outlays are esti- mated at $261 billion: $221 billion for mandatory programs and $39 billion for discretionary programs.6 These outlays are broken down as follows: nutrition assis- tance (70 percent); farm, conservation, and commodity programs (14 percent); “all other,” which includes rural development, research, food safety, marketing and regulatory, and departmental management (11 percent); and forestry (5 percent).7 The USDA has provided a summary of its size, explaining, “Today, USDA is com- prised of 29 agencies organized under eight Mission Areas and 16 Staff Offices, with nearly 100,000 employees serving the American people at more than 6,000 locations across the country and abroad.”8 MAJOR PRIORITY ISSUES AND SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS For an incoming Administration, there are numerous issues that should be addressed at the USDA. This chapter identifies and discusses many of the most important issues. The initial issues discussed should be priority issues for the next Administration: Defend American Agriculture. It is deeply unfortunate that the first issue identified must be a willingness of the incoming Administration to defend Amer- ican agriculture, but this is precisely what the top priority for that Administration — 292 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise should be. As previously discussed, the Biden Administration is seeking to use the federal government to transform the American food system.9 The USDA web site explains: The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), alongside Biden–Harris Administration leadership and the people of this great country, has embarked on another historic journey: transforming the food system as we know it— from farm to fork, and at every stage along the supply chain.10 The federal government does not need to transform the food system or develop a national plan to intervene across the supply chain. Instead, it should respect American farmers, truckers, and everyone who makes the food supply chain so resilient and successful. One of the important lessons learned during the COVID- 19 pandemic was how critical it is to remove barriers in the food supply chain—not to increase them. The Biden Administration’s centrally planned transformational effort mini- mizes the importance of efficient agricultural production and instead places issues such as climate change and equity front and center. The USDA’s Strategic Plan Fiscal Years 2022–2026 identifies six strategic goals, the first three of which focus on issues such as climate change, renewable energy, and systemic racism. In the Secretary of Agriculture’s message, there is only one mention of affordable food— and nothing about efficient production and the incredible innovation and respect for the environment that already exists within the agricultural community.11 The Biden Administration’s USDA strongly supported12 the recent United Nations (U.N.) Food Systems Summit. According to the USDA: The stated goal of the Food Systems Summit was to transform the way the world produces, consumes and thinks about foods within the context of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and to meet the challenges of poverty, food security, malnutrition, population growth, climate change, and natural resource degradation.13 Not unlike those who oppose reliable and affordable energy production, there is a disdain, especially by some on the Left, for American agriculture and the food system.14 The Biden Administration’s vision of a federal government developing a plan that “fixes” agriculture and focuses on issues secondary to food production is very disturbing. A recent USDA-created program captures both the disrespect for American farmers and the Biden Administration’s effort to dictate agricultural practices. The USDA explained that it was concerned with farmers not transitioning to organic farming, and therefore announced that it will dedicate $300 million to

Department of Agriculture

Moderate

Vector: 68%

Pages: 344-346AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill provides general USDA appropriations that support administrative functions and program operations, which indirectly aligns with Project 2025's broader goals of reforming and streamlining the Department of Agriculture. However, it does not explicitly reference or implement specific Project 2025 proposals such as eliminating certain USDA programs, reducing bureaucracy, or shifting focus away from climate-smart agriculture initiatives."

Key themes:USDA fundingadministrative efficiencyagricultural policy support

— 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: 68%

Pages: 344-346AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill provides appropriations for core USDA functions and includes oversight and efficiency measures that align with Project 2025's goals of accountable, streamlined department operations, though it does not explicitly advance specific transformative agendas outlined in the policy."

Key themes:USDA fundingcongressional oversightadministrative efficiencyrural development support

Department of Agriculture

Weak

Vector: 67%

Pages: 329-331AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on USDA internal appropriations and administrative provisions (notification requirements, fund transfers, expense limits) rather than the substantive farm subsidy, crop insurance, or nutrition program reforms emphasized in Project 2025. While it includes minor transparency measures, it does not address the core policy objectives such as reducing premium subsidies, eliminating duplicate payments, or separating agricultural and nutrition programs."

Key themes:USDA appropriationsadministrative oversightfunding transparency

— 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

Small Business Administration

Minimal

Vector: 66%

Pages: 780-782AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill allocates funds to USDA offices and contains no provisions related to the Small Business Administration or its Office of Advocacy, showing no substantive alignment with the Project 2025 SBA policy."

Key themes:federal appropriationsbudget process

— 747 — Small Business Administration established a new role for the Office of Advocacy: “to facilitate greater consider- ation of small business economic issues during international trade negotiations.”14 This small office has been relatively effective over the years—and more produc- tive during periods when a strong Chief Counsel for Advocacy has been installed to utilize the Office of Advocacy’s authority aggressively to provide a check on regulatory overreach. The office is one of the bright spots within the SBA that a conservative Administration could supercharge to dismantle extreme regulatory policies and advance limited-government reforms that promote economic freedom and opportunity. Currently, the SBA’s four core functions include: l Access to capital. SBA maintains assorted financing and lending programs for small businesses, from microlending to debt and equity investment capital. l Entrepreneurial development programs. SBA provides “free” or low- cost training at more than 1,800 locations and through online platforms and webinars. l Government contracting support programs. Through goals established by the SBA for federal departments and agencies, the broader goal is to ensure that small businesses win 23 percent of prime contracts. l Advocacy. This independent office within the SBA works to ensure that federal agencies consider small businesses’ concerns and impact in rulemakings. The office also conducts small-business research. BUDGETARY FLUCTUATION SBA’s budget and programs have expanded significantly under some Admin- istrations and have been scaled back under others. President Ronald Reagan cut the SBA’s budget by more than 30 percent, and his annual budgets regularly pro- posed to eliminate the agency altogether.15 Under President George W. Bush, SBA Administrator Hector Barreto said that SBA’s goal was “to do more with less,”16 but this changed because of Hurricane Katrina and a surge in disaster funding. In 2016, President Barack Obama considered streamlining and combining SBA programs and other business-related agencies and programs under one entity at the U.S. Department of Commerce, but opposition within the small-business lobby in Washington scuttled the effort.17 In general, SBA budget fluctuations have been driven by several factors such as efforts by Administrations either to cut or to greatly expand programs, the need to boost disaster assistance because of economic or weather-related events, business — 748 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise loan credit subsidy costs, and miscellaneous program “enhancements” to support small businesses through economic challenges or circumstances. As noted by the Congressional Research Service: Overall, the SBA’s appropriations have ranged from a high of over $761.9 billion in FY2020 to a low of $571.8 million in FY2007. Much of this volatility is due to significant variation in supplemental appropriations for disaster assistance to address economic damages caused by major hurricanes and for SBA lending program enhancements to help small businesses access capital during and immediately following recessions. For example, in FY2020, the SBA received over $760.9 billion in supplemental appropriations to assist small businesses adversely affected by the novel coronavirus (COVID- 19) pandemic.18 The CRS further notes that “[o]verall, since FY2000, appropriations for SBA’s other programs, excluding supplemental appropriations, have increased at a pace that exceeds inflation.”19 In terms of current loan volume, the SBA “reached nearly $43 billion in fund- ing to small businesses, providing more than 62,000 traditional loans through its 7(a), 504, and Microloan lending partners and over 1,200 investments through SBA licensed Small Business Investment Companies (SBICs) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2022.”20 The agency’s total budgetary resources for FY 2022 amount to $44.25 billion, which represents 0.4 percent of the FY 2022 U.S. federal budget.21 HISTORY OF MISMANAGEMENT Throughout its history, various SBA programs and practices have generated negative news headlines and scathing Government Accountability Office (GAO) and Inspector General (IG) reports that have centered on mismanagement, lack of competent personnel and/or systems, and waste, fraud and abuse.22 From the 8a program23 to Hurricane Katrina24 to the more current COVID-19 (EIDL) program and PPP lending program,25 the SBA has managed to maintain its lending role even when repeated system failures have affected its distribution of funds. Congress has been somewhat responsive, pressuring the SBA to clean up fraud-related matters within its COVID-19 lending and grant programs.26 Repub- licans in the U.S. House of Representatives have gone farther, specifying that the SBA needs to improve transparency and accountability and deal with mission creep, the expansion of unauthorized programs, and structural and reporting deficiencies that have allowed mismanagement and fraud to reoccur, largely through massive supplemental appropriations.27 The SBA is led by an Administrator (currently a member of the President’s Cabinet) and a Deputy Administrator. Senate-confirmed appointees include

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. Harris, Andy

Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2026

119/hr/4121