Sponsored by
Sen. Risch, James E. [R-ID]
ID: R000584
Follow the money
The bill
S. 1228, 119th Congress — read as touching Pipelines & Energy Infrastructure.
The sponsor
Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.
The money
21 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.
The alignment
This bill's text tracks the "Department of Agriculture" section, p. 335-337 of the Mandate for Leadership.
Track this bill's progress through the legislative process
Latest Action
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests, and Mining. Hearings held. With printed Hearing: S.Hrg. 119-237.
December 1, 2025
📍 Current Status
Next: The bill moves to the floor for full chamber debate and voting.
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!
Another masterpiece of legislative theater, brought to you by the same geniuses who think a "qualified youth or conservation corps" is a thing that exists outside of a PR brochure.
Let's dissect this mess, shall we? The bill claims to modify the cost-sharing requirement for conservation projects carried out by these mythical creatures. But what does it really do?
It changes the cost-sharing ratio from 75:25 to 90:10. Wow, what a bold move! I'm sure the environmental lobby is just thrilled to have their costs reduced by a whopping 15 percentage points. Meanwhile, the taxpayers get to pick up the tab for the remaining 90%. Because, you know, conservation projects are always a great use of public funds.
But wait, there's more! This bill doesn't actually create any new regulations or enforcement mechanisms. It just tweaks an existing law to make it slightly more favorable to special interest groups. And by "special interest groups," I mean the same environmental organizations that have been bankrolling these senators' campaigns for years.
Affected industries? Oh, you know, the usual suspects: logging, mining, and any other industry that might actually create jobs or stimulate economic growth. They'll be thrilled to learn that they get to foot the bill for these conservation projects while being forced to comply with even more onerous regulations.
Compliance requirements and timelines? Ha! Don't worry about it. This bill doesn't bother to specify any actual deadlines or penalties for non-compliance. Because, you know, who needs accountability when you're dealing with taxpayer dollars?
Enforcement mechanisms? *crickets* Yeah, good luck with that. I'm sure the same bureaucrats who can't even manage a simple website will be able to effectively monitor and enforce these new regulations.
Economic and operational impacts? Oh boy, where do I even start? This bill is a job-killer, plain and simple. It'll drive up costs for industries that are already struggling to compete with cheap foreign labor. And as for the environmental benefits? Please. We all know this is just a thinly veiled attempt to line the pockets of environmental lobbyists and their cronies in Congress.
Diagnosis: Terminal case of " Politician-itis" – a disease characterized by an inability to think critically, a penchant for grandstanding, and a complete disregard for the well-being of actual constituents. Treatment: a healthy dose of skepticism, a strong stomach, and a willingness to call out these charlatans for what they are.
Sen. Risch, James E. [R-ID]
Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle
No PAC contributions found
No committee contributions found
This bill has 5 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.
ID: M001176
Top Contributors
28
ID: C000880
Top Contributors
25
ID: C001113
Top Contributors
28
ID: H000273
Top Contributors
23
ID: D000618
Top Contributors
30
Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.
Showing 38 nodes and 41 connections
Total contributions: $41
Showing top 18 donors by contribution amount
Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 2 helped.
Section 1 modifies the cost-sharing requirement for conservation projects, which could lead to increased investment in energy infrastructure related to public lands, citing Section 212(a)(1) of the Public Lands Corps Act of 1993
The bill's focus on conservation projects may lead to increased construction and engineering work for qualified youth or conservation corps, as seen in Section 1
This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.AI-enhanced analysis provides detailed alignment ratings.
AI Analysis:
"The bill focuses on increasing federal funding for conservation corps projects on public lands, which aligns with Project 2025's emphasis on reforming USDA conservation programs to address specific environmental problems and ensure accountability. Both share a goal of improving the effectiveness and targeting of conservation efforts, though the bill does not directly address USDA programs like CRP or NRCS overreach."
— 303 — Department of Agriculture Accountability Office said results in the USDA not “regularly assess[ing] the pro- grams’ fraud risks,” the NSLP wasted nearly $500 million in FY 2021.89 The SBP now wastes nearly $200 million annually.90 Despite the ongoing effort to expand school meals under CEP and the evidence of waste and inefficiency, left-of-center Members of Congress and President Biden’s Administration have nonetheless proposed further expansions to extend federal school meals to include every K–12 student—regardless of need.91 The Administra- tion recently proposed expanding federal school meal programs offered during the school year to be offered during the summer as part of the “American Families Plan,” and also proposed expanding CEP. Other federal officials, including Senator Bernie Sanders (I–VT), have, in recent years, proposed expanding the NSLP to all students.92 To serve students in need and prevent the misuse of taxpayer money, the next Administration should focus on students in need and reject efforts to transform federal school meals into an entitlement program. Specifically, the next Administration should: l Promulgate a rule properly interpreting CEP. The USDA should issue a rule that clarifies that only an individual school or a school district as a whole, not a subset of schools within a district, must meet the 40-percent criteria to be eligible for CEP. Education officials should be prohibited from grouping schools together. l Work with lawmakers to eliminate CEP. The NSLP and SBP should be directed to serve children in need, not become an entitlement for students from middle- and upper-income homes. Congress should eliminate CEP. Further, the USDA should not provide meals to students during the summer unless students are taking summer-school classes. Currently, students can get meals from schools even if they are not in summer school, which has, in effect, turned school meals into a federal catering program.93 l Restore programs to their original intent and reject efforts to create universal free school meals. The USDA should work with lawmakers to restore NSLP and SBP to their original goal of providing food to K–12 students who otherwise would not have food to eat while at school. Federal school meals should be focused on children in need, and any efforts to expand student eligibility for federal school meals to include all K–12 students should be soundly rejected. Such expansion would allow an inefficient, wasteful program to grow, magnifying the amount of wasted taxpayer resources. Reform Conservation Programs. Farmers, in general, are excellent stewards of the land, if not for moral or ethical considerations, then out of self-interest to — 304 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise make sure their land and—by extension, their livelihoods—remain intact. Farmers are often called the original conservationists.94 When evaluating federal conservation programs, it is important to remember the importance of the land to farmers. In terms of USDA federal conservation programs, both the USDA’s Farm Service Agency (FSA) and Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) oversee numerous programs.95 As a general matter, the next Administration should ensure that these programs address genuine and specific environmental concerns with a focus on currently existing environmental problems, not those that are speculative in nature. These conservation programs should have clearly identifiable goals, with the success or failure of these programs being directly measurable. Any assistance to farmers to take specific actions should not be provided unless the assistance will directly and clearly help to address a specific environmental problem. Further, any assistance to encourage farmers to engage in certain practices should only be provided if farmers would not have adopted the practices in the first place. There are specific issues that the next Administration should address. The Conservation Reserve Program,96 which is run by FSA, pays farmers to not farm some of their land. This program has recently received attention, as agricultural groups rightfully seek to farm without penalty voluntarily idled land, in light of the consequences to food prices of Russia invading Ukraine.97 There is also a need to reform USDA’s conservation easements. These easements are a powerful tool to incentivize long-term preservation of ecosystems while still allowing farmers to benefit economically. However, when farmers and ranchers sign conservation easements with the USDA, they can be enforced in perpetuity. Future generations, be they the descendants of the landowner or new residents, are bound by those conditions. Ecosystems and topography naturally change over time, but without legislative change, easement requirements will not. The next Administration should: l Champion the elimination of the Conservation Reserve Program. Farmers should not be paid in such a sweeping way not to farm their land. If there is a desire to ensure that extremely sensitive land is not farmed, this should be addressed through targeted efforts that are clearly connected to addressing a specific and concrete environmental harm. The USDA should work with Congress to eliminate this overbroad program. l Reform NRCS wetlands and erodible land compliance and appeals. Problematic NRCS overreach could be avoided entirely by removing its authority to prescribe specific practices on a particular farm operation in order to ensure continued eligibility to participate in USDA farm programs,
AI Analysis:
"The bill focuses on increasing federal funding for youth conservation corps projects on public lands, while the Project 2025 policy excerpt discusses transportation infrastructure financing, loan programs, and public-private partnerships under the Department of Transportation. There is no direct thematic overlap between conservation corps funding and transportation loan policies."
— 622 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise long-term maintenance costs. At a bare minimum, the number of grants should be consolidated. DOT would also reduce unnecessary burdens by returning to the Trump Admin- istration’s “rule on rules” approach to regulations, implemented in late 2019 as RIN 2105-AE84.4 This rule strengthened the Administration’s effort to remove outdated regulations, find cost-saving reforms, and clarify that guidance documents are in fact guidance rather than mandatory impositions. The Biden Administration unwisely moved away from this reform, and the next Administration should revive it without delay. BUILD AMERICA BUREAU The Build America Bureau (BAB) resides within the Office of the Secretary and describes itself as “responsible for driving transportation infrastructure develop- ment projects in the United States.”5 This lofty-sounding goal in practice means that the Bureau serves as the point of contact for distributing funds for transpor- tation projects in the form of subsidized 30-year loans. For higher-quality projects and in certain circumstances, these government loans may disintermediate the private sector from providing similar financing, albeit at higher costs. At certain times in the economic cycle, and for many lower-quality projects with more dubious economic return, similar loans from the private sector are simply not available. Should the BAB continue to exist and potentially disintermediate the private financing sector, it must maintain underwriting discipline and continue best practices of requiring rigorous financial modeling and cushion for repayment of loans in a variety of economic scenarios. In addition: l The BAB should ensure that these loans do not become grants in another form by maintaining the requirement that all project borrowers be rated at least investment grade by the major ratings agencies and that project sponsors remain liable to ensure that all financing is repaid, even in periods of financial stress and economic downturns. l Project sponsors should be required to show that projects have positive economic value to taxpayers, and sponsors should guarantee that all federal financing will be repaid through properly structured loan terms, including a minimum equity commitment from all project sponsors. l All projects should also be required to show repayment ability in various interest rate environments, and the BAB should ensure that long-term loans are structured appropriately with regard to the fixing of interest rates and hedging of interest rate risk on the part of the borrowers to avoid financial stress or default driven solely by rising interest rates. — 623 — Department of Transportation l Policymakers should maintain awareness and promote transparency regarding the continued existence of this loan program and whether private financiers are being disintermediated by the subsidized BAB lending that the private sector simply cannot match. l A cost-benefit analysis of the federal government’s potential replacement and disintermediation of the private financing sector regarding infrastructure loans, which is not currently performed, should be conducted on a regular basis. PUBLIC–PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS Much infrastructure could be funded through public–private partnerships (P3s), a procurement method that uses private financing to construct infrastructure. In exchange for providing the financing, the private partner typically retains the right to operate the asset under requirements specified by the government in a contract called a concession agreement. In addition, the private partner is given the right either to collect fees from the users of the asset or to receive a periodic payment from the government conditioned on the asset’s availability: If a highway is not open to traffic when it should be, for example, the government’s payment to the private concessionaire is reduced. The best practice for a government that is interested in using a P3 to deliver a project is for the government first to perform a value-for-money study, which compares the costs and benefits of procuring the asset under a typical procurement against the costs and benefits of utilizing a P3. Since private equity is involved, the financing costs for P3s are higher, but they also are frequently more than offset by the private sector’s ability to generate efficiencies and cost savings in the design, construction, maintenance, and operation of the asset. If the value-for-money study finds that the efficiencies of a P3 and the value of risk shifted to the private sector exceed the additional financing costs, then utilizing a P3 is good public policy because Americans have better infrastructure at a lower cost. As well as providing better transportation facilities for Americans, P3s offer a number of benefits to governments. Specifically, they: l Provide access to some of the world’s best talent with vast experience in delivering infrastructure, l Create incentives for innovation and creativity, l Shift unique project risks to companies that are familiar with those risks, and
AI Analysis:
"The bill focuses on increasing federal funding for youth conservation corps projects on public lands, while the Project 2025 policy excerpt emphasizes eliminating the Conservation Reserve Program and reducing federal conservation compliance burdens on farmers. Both touch on land conservation but diverge significantly in approach and target stakeholders."
— 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). — 316 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 97. American Bakers Association et al., letter to U.S. Department of Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, March 23, 2022, https://www.dropbox.com/s/yfyv04ilkom11zd/USDA%20Letter%20to%20Secretary%20Vilsack%20on%20 Tools%20to%20Address%20Global%20Commodity%20Supply%20Challenges%203.23.22_.pdf?dl=0 (accessed December 15, 2022). It is also necessary to increase food production to mitigate high food inflation. Approximately 25 percent of idled land is considered prime farmland. Therefore, one-quarter of idled land is merely idling, not producing food—and this does not include other land that may viably be used for food production. The Conservation Reserve Program should be eliminated. There are also two issues connected to property rights and fairness that should be addressed: challenging NRCS determinations and problems with USDA easements. To be eligible for many USDA programs, farmers must comply with certain conservation provisions enforced by NRCS. Conservation compliance of wetlands and highly erodible lands consist of federal restrictions that prevent farmers from using parts of their property. If farmers plant crops or modify the areas federal officials deem protected, farmers can lose all access to USDA programs and support. For farmers, there are real, practical concerns to challenging NRCS determinations, including the time and costs of challenging the federal bureaucracy. NRCS is empowered to declare areas wetlands and highly erodible areas, which are therefore off limits for farming. If these wetland-or-erodible-declared areas are used in a manner deemed unacceptable by federal officials, NRCS may revoke access to federal resources and subsidies by making technical determinations that carry potential penalties. There must be a fair and reasonable process for farmers to challenge such actions. See Daren Bakst, “Food Price Inflation Continues to Worsen. Here’s What Should Be Done About It,” The Daily Signal, April 25, 2022, https:// www.dailysignal.com/2022/04/25/food-price-inflation-continuing-to-worsen-heres-what-should-be-done- about-it/ (accessed December 15, 2022); American Bakers Association et.al., letter to Vilsack; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, “Conservation Compliance Appeals Process,” https://www. nrcs.usda.gov/getting-assistance/compliance/conservation-compliance-appeals-process (accessed December 15, 2022); and Chris Bennett, “Regulatory Hell: Farmer and Veteran Wins 10-Year Wetlands Fight With Government,” AG Web, August 30, 2021, https://www.agweb.com/news/crops/crop-production/regulatory-hell-farmer-and- veteran-wins-10-year-wetlands-fight (accessed December 15, 2022). 98. Fortunately, there are already resources available to help states establish their own wetlands conservation programs. One particular example, the American Legislative Exchange Council’s Wetlands Mapping and Protection Act model policy, is available for states to define the procedures, guidelines, and administration of wetlands programs. American Legislative Exchange Council, “Wetlands Mapping and Protection Act,” November 16, 2017, https://alec.org/model-policy/wetlands-mapping-and-protection-act/ (accessed December 16, 2022). The new Administration should focus on best practices instead of imposing prescriptive federal practices. It should support the policies contained within the “NRCS Wetland Compliance and Appeals Reform Act” and modify NRCS compliance rules to protect farmers and ranchers by adding protections against regulatory overreach—such as banning the practice of re-engaging farmers in new technical determinations appeals processes for the same areas of their farms. See NRCS Wetland Compliance and Appeals Reform Act, S. 4931, 117th Cong., 2nd Sess., https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/4931?s=1&r=8 (accessed December 15, 2022). 99. Ibid 100. See, for example, Daren Bakst and Jeremy Dalrymple, “Reducing Federal Barriers for the Sale of Meat,” Heritage Foundation Issue Brief No. 5078, June 1, 2020, https://www.heritage.org/agriculture/report/ reducing-federal-barriers-the-sale-meat, and U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food Safety and Inspection Service, “State Inspection Programs,” updated January 12, 2023, https://www.fsis.usda.gov/inspection/state- inspection-programs (accessed December 15, 2022). 101. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food Safety and Inspection Service, “Cooperative Interstate Shipping Program,” September 7, 2022, https://www.fsis.usda.gov/inspection/state-inspection-programs/cooperative- interstate-shipping-program (accessed December 15, 2022). 102. U.S. Department of Agriculture, “State Inspection Programs.” 103. The Senate bill removes obstacles for both meat and poultry. The House version does not appear to cover poultry. New Markets for State-Inspected Meat and Poultry Act of 2021, S. 107, 117th Cong., 1st Sess., https:// www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/107#:~:text=This%20bill%20allows%20meat%20and,be%20 sold%20in%20interstate%20commerce (accessed December 15, 2022), and Expanding Markets for State- Inspected Meat Processors Act of 2021, H.R. 1998, 117th Cong., 1st Sess., https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th- congress/house-bill/1998 (accessed December 15, 2022).
Showing 3 of 5 policy matches
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.