A bill to amend the Federal Crop Insurance Act and the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 to make the native sod provisions applicable to the United States and to modify those provisions, and for other purposes.
Sponsored by
Sen. Thune, John [R-SD]
ID: T000250
Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law
Track this bill's progress through the legislative process
Introduced
đź“Ť Current Status
Next: The bill will be reviewed by relevant committees who will debate, amend, and vote on it.
Committee Review
Floor Action
Passed Senate
House Review
Passed Congress
Presidential Action
Became Law
đź“š 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
Another masterpiece of legislative theater, courtesy of Senators Thune and Klobuchar. Let's dissect this farce, shall we?
**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The "American Prairie Conservation Act" is a laughable attempt to masquerade as an environmental bill while actually serving the interests of Big Ag. The main purpose is to modify the native sod provisions in the Federal Crop Insurance Act and the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996, making them applicable nationwide.
**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill requires producers who till native sod acreage for crop production to certify their activities using forms and maps. This is a token effort to appear environmentally conscious while actually allowing farmers to continue exploiting native prairies for profit. The changes to existing law are minor, with the most significant being the expansion of these provisions nationwide.
**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** Farmers, agricultural corporations, and insurance companies will be the primary beneficiaries of this bill. Environmental groups might pretend to support it, but they're just pawns in the game. Taxpayers will foot the bill for the subsidies and bureaucratic overhead.
**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a Band-Aid on a bullet wound. It won't stop the destruction of native prairies or address the root causes of environmental degradation. Instead, it'll create more paperwork and administrative costs, which will be passed on to taxpayers. The real impact will be felt by the environment, as native ecosystems continue to disappear under the plow.
Diagnosis: This bill is a classic case of "Legislative Lip Service" – a disease characterized by empty promises, token gestures, and a complete disregard for actual problem-solving. Symptoms include:
* Overuse of buzzwords like "conservation" and "sustainability" * Token provisions that don't address the root causes of environmental issues * A focus on bureaucratic processes rather than meaningful change
Treatment: None required. This bill will likely pass with minimal scrutiny, as politicians and lobbyists are too busy congratulating themselves on their "environmental efforts." Meanwhile, the American prairies will continue to disappear, and taxpayers will be left footing the bill for this farce.
Prognosis: Grim. The disease of Legislative Lip Service is terminal, and this bill is just another symptom of a larger problem – the complete disconnect between politicians and reality.
Related Topics
đź’° Campaign Finance Network
No campaign finance data available for Sen. Thune, John [R-SD]
Project 2025 Policy Matches
This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document. Higher similarity scores indicate stronger thematic connections.
Introduction
— 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
Introduction
— 290 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise protection and management, rural development, and related issues with a commitment to delivering equitable and climate smart opportunities that inspire and help America thrive.1 The first part of the mission statement regarding the issues covered is not new to the Biden Administration; it reflects the overly broad nature of the USDA’s work. However, the language bringing in equity and climate change is new to the Biden Administration and part of the USDA’s express effort to transform agricultural production.2 The USDA’s new vision statement illuminates the focus of this effort: An equitable and climate smart food and agriculture economy that protects and improves the health, nutrition and quality of life of all Americans, yields healthy land, forests and clean water, helps rural America thrive, and feeds the world.3 This effort is one of a federal central plan to put climate change and envi- ronmental issues ahead of the most important requirements of agriculture—to efficiently produce safe food. The USDA would apparently use its power to change the very nature of the food and agriculture economy into one that is “equitable and climate smart.” As an initial matter, the USDA should not try to control and shape the economy, but should instead remove obstacles that hinder food production. Further, it should not place ancillary issues, such as environmental issues, ahead of agricultural production itself. A Proper Mission Statement. Even before the Biden Administration’s rad- ical effort to reshape the USDA’s work, the USDA’s mission was and is too broad, including serving as a major welfare agency through implementation of programs such as food stamps. This far-reaching mission is not the fault of the USDA, but of Congress, which has given the department its extensive power. Congress must limit the USDA’s role. A proper mission would clarify that the department’s primary focus is on agriculture and that the USDA serves all Amer- icans. The USDA’s “client” is the American people in general, not a subset of interests, such as farmers, meatpackers, environmental groups, etc. Within this agricultural focus, the USDA should develop and disseminate information and research (the historical role of the USDA); identify and address concrete threats to public health and safety arising directly from food and agri- culture; remove unjustified foreign trade barriers blocking market access for American agricultural goods; and generally remove government barriers that undermine access to safe and affordable food across the food supply chain. Core principles should be included within any mission statement, including a recognition that farmers, and the food system in general, should be free from unnecessary government intervention. Further, there should be clear statements
Introduction
— 290 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise protection and management, rural development, and related issues with a commitment to delivering equitable and climate smart opportunities that inspire and help America thrive.1 The first part of the mission statement regarding the issues covered is not new to the Biden Administration; it reflects the overly broad nature of the USDA’s work. However, the language bringing in equity and climate change is new to the Biden Administration and part of the USDA’s express effort to transform agricultural production.2 The USDA’s new vision statement illuminates the focus of this effort: An equitable and climate smart food and agriculture economy that protects and improves the health, nutrition and quality of life of all Americans, yields healthy land, forests and clean water, helps rural America thrive, and feeds the world.3 This effort is one of a federal central plan to put climate change and envi- ronmental issues ahead of the most important requirements of agriculture—to efficiently produce safe food. The USDA would apparently use its power to change the very nature of the food and agriculture economy into one that is “equitable and climate smart.” As an initial matter, the USDA should not try to control and shape the economy, but should instead remove obstacles that hinder food production. Further, it should not place ancillary issues, such as environmental issues, ahead of agricultural production itself. A Proper Mission Statement. Even before the Biden Administration’s rad- ical effort to reshape the USDA’s work, the USDA’s mission was and is too broad, including serving as a major welfare agency through implementation of programs such as food stamps. This far-reaching mission is not the fault of the USDA, but of Congress, which has given the department its extensive power. Congress must limit the USDA’s role. A proper mission would clarify that the department’s primary focus is on agriculture and that the USDA serves all Amer- icans. The USDA’s “client” is the American people in general, not a subset of interests, such as farmers, meatpackers, environmental groups, etc. Within this agricultural focus, the USDA should develop and disseminate information and research (the historical role of the USDA); identify and address concrete threats to public health and safety arising directly from food and agri- culture; remove unjustified foreign trade barriers blocking market access for American agricultural goods; and generally remove government barriers that undermine access to safe and affordable food across the food supply chain. Core principles should be included within any mission statement, including a recognition that farmers, and the food system in general, should be free from unnecessary government intervention. Further, there should be clear statements — 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
Showing 3 of 5 policy matches
About These Correlations
Policy matches are calculated using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text. A score of 60% or higher indicates meaningful thematic overlap. This does not imply direct causation or intent, but highlights areas where legislation aligns with Project 2025 policy objectives.