Wildfire Prevention Act of 2025

Download PDF
Bill ID: 119/s/140
Last Updated: June 10, 2026

Sponsored by

Sen. Barrasso, John [R-WY]

ID: B001261

Follow the money

The bill

Wildfire Prevention Act of 2025

S. 140, 119th Congress — read as touching Electric Utilities.

The sponsor

Sen. Barrasso, John [R-WY]

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

The money

$103,540 raised

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

The alignment

66% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Introduction" section, p. 350-352 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.

June 9, 2026

Introduced

Committee Review

Floor Action

📍 Current Status

Next: The full Senate will vote on whether to pass the bill.

Passed Senate

🏛️

House 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

Another masterpiece of legislative theater, brought to you by the esteemed members of Congress. The Wildfire Prevention Act of 2025 is a prime example of how politicians can take a legitimate issue and turn it into a bloated, self-serving monstrosity.

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

The bill's stated purpose is to address the forest health crisis on National Forest System lands and public lands. Sounds noble, right? But let's not be fooled. The real objective here is to create a smokescreen of bureaucratic jargon and meaningless metrics to justify more funding for the forestry industry.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

The bill establishes annual goals for mechanical thinning and prescribed fire on Federal land, which sounds like a reasonable approach to managing forest health. However, these goals are based on arbitrary numbers from previous years, rather than any actual scientific assessment of what's needed to prevent wildfires. It's like setting a patient's treatment plan based on last year's symptoms, rather than their current condition.

The bill also creates new reporting requirements and metrics for evaluating the effectiveness of forest management activities. Because, you know, what we really need is more paperwork and bureaucratic red tape to slow down actual progress.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

The usual suspects are involved here: the forestry industry, environmental groups, and local communities. But let's be real, the only ones who will truly benefit from this bill are the logging companies and their lobbyists. The rest of us will just get more empty promises and platitudes about "sustainable forest management."

**Potential Impact & Implications**

The impact of this bill will be negligible at best. It won't prevent wildfires, but it will create a lot of busywork for bureaucrats and provide a nice PR boost for politicians who want to look like they're doing something.

In reality, the bill is just a Band-Aid on a bullet wound. It doesn't address the root causes of forest health issues, such as climate change, drought, or decades of poor land management practices. Instead, it focuses on symptoms and provides more funding for the same old approaches that haven't worked in the past.

In short, this bill is a classic case of "accomplishments over rhetoric." It's all about creating the illusion of progress, rather than actual progress itself. So, let's give our politicians a round of applause for their outstanding achievement in doing absolutely nothing to address the real problems facing our forests. Bravo!

Related Topics

Public Lands & Natural ResourcesWater & Air Quality RegulationsWildlife & Endangered Species
Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Sen. Barrasso, John [R-WY]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions
$103,540
26 donors
PACs
$0
Organizations
$21,900
Committees
$0
Individuals
$70,540

No PAC contributions found

1
TO PROTECT OUR HERITAGE
2 transactions
$10,000
2
EASTERN BAND OF CHEROKEE INDIANS
2 transactions
$6,600
3
UTE INDIAN TRIBE
1 transaction
$3,300
4
MOHEGAN TRIBE OF INDIANS OF CONNECTICUT/PARTNERSHIP
1 transaction
$1,000
5
BL PARTNERS (VERIFIED PARTNERSHIP)
1 transaction
$1,000

No committee contributions found

1
SILVERMAN, JEFFREY
2 transactions
$13,200
2
STEPHENSON, JIM
1 transaction
$5,600
3
EMMET, RICHARD
1 transaction
$5,000
4
HOWRYLA, DAVID
1 transaction
$3,435
5
EDENS, WESLEY
1 transaction
$3,435
6
BURR, DANIELLE
1 transaction
$3,435
7
KAPLAN, JOEL
1 transaction
$3,435
8
TRIOLO, JACOB
1 transaction
$3,300
9
KIMBELL, JEFFREY
1 transaction
$3,300
10
EDSON, CHRISTOPHER
1 transaction
$3,300
11
SINENSKY, PETER
1 transaction
$3,300
12
ZITO, JOHN
1 transaction
$3,300
13
KELLY, MARTIN
1 transaction
$3,300
14
PATEL, SANJAY
1 transaction
$3,300
15
SHANMUGAM, KANNON
1 transaction
$3,300
16
BELARDI, JAMES
1 transaction
$3,300
17
FARR, NATALIE
1 transaction
$3,300

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 5 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Sen. Daines, Steve [R-MT]

ID: D000618

Top Contributors

10

1
CONFEDERATED SALISH AND KOOTENAI TRIBES OF THE FLATHEAD NATI
OrganizationPABLO, MT
$6,600
Mar 30, 2023
2
BARONA BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationLAKESIDE, CA
$5,000
Jun 18, 2024
3
BLUECHIP FINANCIAL
OrganizationBELCOURT, ND
$3,300
Jun 20, 2024
4
HPUL PROJECT OPERATION
OrganizationUPPER LAKE, CA
$3,300
Jun 20, 2024
5
EASTERN BAND OF CHEROKEE INDIANS
OrganizationCHEROKEE, NC
$3,300
Nov 5, 2024
6
SUQUAMISH INDIAN TRIBE
OrganizationSUQUAMISH, WA
$3,300
Sep 20, 2024
7
ALABAMA-COUSHATTA TRIBE
OrganizationLIVINGSTON, TX
$2,500
Oct 31, 2024
8
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN
$1,000
Jun 5, 2024
9
MUSCOGEE CREEK NATION
OrganizationOKMULGEE, OK
$1,000
Jun 20, 2024
10
CHOCTAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA
OrganizationDURANT, OK
$765
Oct 17, 2023

Sen. Lummis, Cynthia M. [R-WY]

ID: L000571

Top Contributors

10

1
HEGYI, ALBERT P
1ST FINANCIAL BANK USABANKER
IndividualNEW YORK, NY
$6,600
Dec 6, 2023
2
MANDELBLATT, DANIELLE
RETIREDRETIRED
IndividualASPEN, CO
$6,600
Sep 26, 2024
3
MANDELBLATT, ERIC
SOROBAN CAPITAL PARTNERS LPMANAGING PARTNER
IndividualASPEN, CO
$6,600
Sep 26, 2024
4
SAMANI, PYAHM
IndividualAUSTIN, TX
$5,800
Aug 8, 2023
5
CASCARILLA, MARISSA
NAHOMEMAKER
IndividualMIAMI, FL
$3,700
Apr 1, 2024
6
CASCARILLA, CHARLES
PAXOSCEO
IndividualMIAMI, FL
$3,700
Apr 1, 2024
7
DOWNS, RAISSA
TARPLIN, DOWNS AND YOUNG, LLCCONSULTANT
IndividualWASHINGTON, DC
$3,600
Dec 12, 2024
8
SCARAMUCCI, ANTHONY
SKYBRIDGEMANAGING PARTNER
IndividualPLANDOME, NY
$3,435
Jul 30, 2024
9
HOBART, ROBERT
VENTURE GOVERNMENT STRATEGIESCONSULTANT
IndividualNASHVILLE, TN
$3,435
Aug 5, 2024
10
HOLDING, KATHLEEN MS.
SUNLIGHT RANCH CO.EXECUTIVE
IndividualDAYTON, WY
$3,300
Dec 6, 2023

Sen. Sheehy, Tim [R-MT]

ID: S001232

Top Contributors

10

1
CLUB FOR GROWTH PAC
PACWASHINGTON, DC
$7,720
Jun 27, 2024
2
CLUB FOR GROWTH PAC
PACWASHINGTON, DC
$7,720
Jun 27, 2024
3
CLUB FOR GROWTH PAC
PACWASHINGTON, DC
$7,720
Jun 27, 2024
4
CLUB FOR GROWTH PAC
PACWASHINGTON, DC
$7,720
Jun 27, 2024
5
CLUB FOR GROWTH PAC
PACWASHINGTON, DC
$7,720
Jun 27, 2024
6
SENATE CONSERVATIVES FUND
PACWASHINGTON, DC
$7,609
Jun 21, 2024
7
SENATE CONSERVATIVES FUND
PACWASHINGTON, DC
$7,609
Jun 21, 2024
8
SENATE CONSERVATIVES FUND
PACWASHINGTON, DC
$7,609
Jun 21, 2024
9
REPUBLICAN JEWISH COALITION-POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (RJC-PAC)
PACWASHINGTON, DC
$7,000
Jun 25, 2024
10
REPUBLICAN JEWISH COALITION-POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (RJC-PAC)
PACWASHINGTON, DC
$7,000
Jun 25, 2024

Sen. Risch, James E. [R-ID]

ID: R000584

Top Contributors

10

1
CRW RESOURCES
OrganizationCOEUR D ALENE, ID
$1,000
Feb 29, 2024
2
SNELL, PETER
ARBELLA CAPITALREAL EATATE
IndividualARLINGTON, VA
$5,000
May 8, 2024
3
KAYALI, ZEID
SELFPHYSICIAN
IndividualPASADENA, CA
$3,500
Feb 9, 2023
4
MOORE, JEFFREY
RETIREDRETIRED
IndividualLAS VEGAS, NV
$3,435
Nov 19, 2024
5
KTELEH, TAREK
RHEUMATOLOGYDOCTOR
IndividualFISHERS, IN
$3,300
Dec 23, 2024
6
ALAAMA, ABDUL M.D.
SELFGASTROENTEROLOGY
IndividualWHITTIER, CA
$3,300
Feb 9, 2023
7
ASHOURI, DIANA
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIAPHYSICIAN
IndividualPASADENA, CA
$3,300
Feb 9, 2023
8
DIAB, MOHAMED KHEIR
MASIMO CORPORATIONDIRECTOR
IndividualLADERA RANCH, CA
$3,300
Feb 9, 2023
9
MOUJTAHED, SAED
OWL REXALL INFUSIONDIRECTOR
IndividualTRABUCO CANYON, CA
$3,300
Feb 9, 2023
10
MONSEN, MARION F
RETIREDRETIRED
IndividualSUN VALLEY, ID
$3,300
Sep 6, 2023

Sen. Crapo, Mike [R-ID]

ID: C000880

Top Contributors

10

1
MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationBANNING, CA
$3,300
Jun 30, 2023
2
SAN MANUEL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationLOS ANGELES, CA
$2,000
Dec 19, 2024
3
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN
$1,000
Apr 30, 2024
4
ONEIDA NATION
OrganizationONEIDA, WI
$1,000
Sep 10, 2024
5
RENO-SPARKS INDIAN COLONY
OrganizationRENO, NV
$500
Sep 10, 2024
6
ARNOLD, JOHN D. MR.
NONERETIRED
IndividualHOUSTON, TX
$6,600
May 6, 2024
7
LEPRINO, TERRY L
NONERETIRED
IndividualDENVER, CO
$3,300
Nov 1, 2024
8
BUKOWSKY, BRANT
MORTGAGE RESEARCH CENTERENTREPRENEUR
IndividualCOLUMBIA, MO
$3,300
Oct 9, 2023
9
BUKOWSKY, BROCK
VETERANS UNITEDFINANCE
IndividualCOLUMBIA, MO
$3,300
Nov 28, 2023
10
SILBEY, ALEXANDER
ATS COMMUNICATIONS, INC.CONSULTANT
IndividualWASHINGTON, DC
$3,300
Dec 21, 2023

Donor Network - Sen. Barrasso, John [R-WY]

PACs
Organizations
Individuals
Politicians

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

Loading...

Showing 86 nodes and 45 connections (77 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $177,200

Top Donors - Sen. Barrasso, John [R-WY]

Showing top 25 donors by contribution amount

5 Orgs4 Committees17 Individuals

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 4 helped.

  • +Electric Utilitiesconfidence 0.90

    Section 201 amends the Federal Land Policy and Management Act to allow electric transmission and distribution facility owners/operators to cut and remove trees within 50 feet of power lines without a separate timber sale, and to retain proceeds from selling removed material (less transportation costs). This reduces regulatory burden and provides potential revenue, benefiting electric utilities.

  • Section 202 increases the timber sale threshold from $10,000 to $55,000, reducing administrative burden for smaller timber sales. This could benefit construction and engineering firms involved in logging, road building, and related activities on National Forest System land by streamlining permitting.

  • Section 302 establishes a public-private wildfire technology deployment and testbed partnership that prioritizes emerging technologies including artificial intelligence, quantum sensing, computing, and 5G private networks. This creates opportunities for AI and cloud infrastructure providers to test and deploy technologies with federal agencies.

  • +Cybersecurityconfidence 0.60

    Section 302's technology partnership includes 'common operating pictures or operational dashboards' and 'safety equipment' as priority areas, which could encompass cybersecurity solutions for protecting wildfire response systems and data.

Project 2025 Policy Matches

This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.

Introduction

Moderate66.1%
Pages: 350-352

— 318 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 121. U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service, “FY 1905–2021 National Summary Cut and Sold Data Graphs,” https://www.fs.usda.gov/forestmanagement/documents/sold-harvest/documents/1905-2021_Natl_ Summary_Graph_wHarvestAcres.pdf (accessed December 16, 2022), and U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service, “Forest Products Cut and Sold from the National Forests and Grasslands,” https://www.fs.usda. gov/forestmanagement/products/cut-sold/index.shtml (accessed December 16, 2022). 122. Donald J. Trump, “Promoting Active Management of America’s Forests, Rangelands, and Other Federal Lands to Improve Conditions and Reduce Wildfire Risk,” Executive Order 13855, December 21, 2018, https://www. govinfo.gov/content/pkg/DCPD-201800866/pdf/DCPD-201800866.pdf (accessed December 16, 2022). 123. Ibid. 124. Ibid. 125. Dietary Guidelines for Americans, https://www.dietaryguidelines.gov/ (accessed December 16, 2022). 126. Dietary Guidelines for Americans, “History of the Dietary Guidelines,” https://www.dietaryguidelines.gov/ about-dietary-guidelines/history-dietary-guidelines (accessed December 16, 2022). 127. Daren Bakst, “Extreme Environmental Agenda Hijacks Dietary Guidelines: Comment to the Advisory Committee,” The Daily Signal, July 17, 2014, https://www.dailysignal.com/2014/07/17/extreme-environmental- agenda-hijacks-dietary-guidelines-comment-advisory-committee/ (accessed December 16, 2022). 128. Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010, S. 3307, 111th Cong., 2nd Sess., https://www.congress.gov/bill/111th- congress/senate-bill/3307/text (accessed December 16, 2022), and Dietary Guidelines for Americans, “Current Dietary Guidelines,” https://www.dietaryguidelines.gov/usda-hhs-development-dietary-guidelines (accessed December 16, 2022). — 319 — 11 DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Lindsey M. Burke MISSION Federal education policy should be limited and, ultimately, the federal Depart- ment of Education should be eliminated. When power is exercised, it should empower students and families, not government. In our pluralistic society, fami- lies and students should be free to choose from a diverse set of school options and learning environments that best fit their needs. Our postsecondary institutions should also reflect such diversity, with room for not only “traditional” liberal arts colleges and research universities but also faith-based institutions, career schools, military academies, and lifelong learning programs. Elementary and secondary education policy should follow the path outlined by Milton Friedman in 1955, wherein education is publicly funded but education decisions are made by families. Ultimately, every parent should have the option to direct his or her child’s share of education funding through an education sav- ings account (ESA), funded overwhelmingly by state and local taxpayers, which would empower parents to choose a set of education options that meet their child's unique needs. States are eager to lead in K–12 education. For decades, they have acted inde- pendently of the federal government to pioneer a variety of constructive reforms and school choice programs. For example, in 2011, Arizona first piloted ESAs, which provide families roughly 90 percent of what the state would have spent on that child in public school to be used instead on education options such as private school tuition, online courses, and tutoring. In 2022, Arizona expanded the program to be available to all families.

Introduction

Moderate65.9%
Pages: 341-343

— 308 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Reform Forest Service Wildfire Management. The United States Forest Service is one of four federal government land management agencies that admin- ister 606 million acres, or 95 percent of the 640 million acres of surface land area managed by the federal government.115 Located within the USDA, the Forest Service manages the National Forest System, which is comprised of 193 million acres.116 As explained by the USDA, “The USDA Forest Service’s mission is to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the nation’s forests and grasslands to meet the needs of present and future generations.”117 The Forest Service should focus on proactive management of the forests and grasslands that does not depend heavily on burning. There should be resilient forests and grasslands in the wake of management actions. Wildfires have become a primary vegetation management regime for national forests and grasslands.118 Recognizing the need for vegetation management, the Forest Service has adopted “pyro-silviculture” using “unplanned” fire,119 such as unplanned human-caused fires, to otherwise accomplish vegetation management.120 The Forest Service should instead be focusing on addressing the precipitous annual amassing of biomass in the national forests that drive the behavior of wildfires. By thinning trees, removing live fuels and deadwood, and taking other preventive steps, the Forest Service can help to minimize the consequences of wildfires. Increasing timber sales could also play an important role in the effort to change the behavior of wildfire because there would be less biomass. Timber sales and timber harvested in public forests dropped precipitously in the early 1990s and still remain very low. For example, in 1988, the volume of timber sold and harvested by volume was about 11 billion and 12.6 billion board feet (BBF), respectively.121 In 2021, timber sold was 2.8 BBF and timber harvested was 2.4 BBF. In 2018, President Donald Trump issued Executive Order 13855 to, among other things, promote active management of forests and reduce wildfire risks.122 The executive order stated, “Active management of vegetation is needed to treat these dangerous conditions on Federal lands but is often delayed due to challenges associated with regulatory analysis and current consultation requirements.”123 It further explained the need to reduce regulatory obstacles to fuel reduction in forests created by the National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act.124 The next Administration should: l Champion executive action, consistent with law, and proactive legislation to reduce wildfires. This would involve embracing Executive Order 13855, building upon it, and working with lawmakers to promote active management of vegetation, reduce regulatory obstacles to reducing fuel buildup, and increase timber sales. — 309 — Department of Agriculture Eliminate or Reform the Dietary Guidelines. The USDA, in collaboration with HHS, publishes the Dietary Guidelines every five years.125 For more than 40 years, the federal government has been releasing Dietary Guidelines,126 and during this time, there has been constant controversy due to questionable recommenda- tions and claims regarding the politicization of the process. In the 2015 Dietary Guidelines process, the influential Dietary Guidelines Advi- sory Committee veered off mission and attempted to persuade the USDA and HHS to adopt nutritional advice that focused not just on human health, but the health of the planet.127 Issues such as climate change and sustainability infiltrated the process. Fortunately, the 2020 process did not get diverted in this manner. How- ever, the Dietary Guidelines remain a potential tool to influence dietary choices to achieve objectives unrelated to the nutritional and dietary well-being of Americans. There is no shortage of private sector dietary advice for the public, and nutrition and dietary choices are best left to individuals to address their personal needs. This includes working with their own health professionals. As it is, there is constantly changing advice provided by the government, with insufficient qualifications on the advice, oversimplification to the point of miscommunicating important points, questionable use of science, and potential political influence. The Dietary Guidelines have a major impact because they not only can influence how private health providers offer nutritional advice, but they also inform federal programs. School meals are required to be consistent with the guidelines.128 The next Administration should: l Work with lawmakers to repeal the Dietary Guidelines. The USDA should help lead an effort to repeal the Dietary Guidelines. l Minimally, the next Administration should reform the Dietary Guidelines. The USDA, with HHS, should develop a more transparent process that properly considers the underlying science and does not overstate its findings. It should also ensure that the Dietary Guidelines focus on nutritional issues and do not veer off-mission by focusing on unrelated issues, such as the environment, that have nothing to do with nutritional advice. In fact, if environmental concerns supersede or water down recommendations for human nutritional advice, the public would be receiving misleading health information. The USDA, working with lawmakers, should codify these reforms into law. ORGANIZATIONAL ISSUES Based on the recommended reforms identified as ideal solutions, the USDA would look different in many respects. One of the biggest changes would be a USDA that is not focused on welfare, given that means-tested welfare programs would

Introduction

Moderate65.9%
Pages: 341-343

— 308 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Reform Forest Service Wildfire Management. The United States Forest Service is one of four federal government land management agencies that admin- ister 606 million acres, or 95 percent of the 640 million acres of surface land area managed by the federal government.115 Located within the USDA, the Forest Service manages the National Forest System, which is comprised of 193 million acres.116 As explained by the USDA, “The USDA Forest Service’s mission is to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the nation’s forests and grasslands to meet the needs of present and future generations.”117 The Forest Service should focus on proactive management of the forests and grasslands that does not depend heavily on burning. There should be resilient forests and grasslands in the wake of management actions. Wildfires have become a primary vegetation management regime for national forests and grasslands.118 Recognizing the need for vegetation management, the Forest Service has adopted “pyro-silviculture” using “unplanned” fire,119 such as unplanned human-caused fires, to otherwise accomplish vegetation management.120 The Forest Service should instead be focusing on addressing the precipitous annual amassing of biomass in the national forests that drive the behavior of wildfires. By thinning trees, removing live fuels and deadwood, and taking other preventive steps, the Forest Service can help to minimize the consequences of wildfires. Increasing timber sales could also play an important role in the effort to change the behavior of wildfire because there would be less biomass. Timber sales and timber harvested in public forests dropped precipitously in the early 1990s and still remain very low. For example, in 1988, the volume of timber sold and harvested by volume was about 11 billion and 12.6 billion board feet (BBF), respectively.121 In 2021, timber sold was 2.8 BBF and timber harvested was 2.4 BBF. In 2018, President Donald Trump issued Executive Order 13855 to, among other things, promote active management of forests and reduce wildfire risks.122 The executive order stated, “Active management of vegetation is needed to treat these dangerous conditions on Federal lands but is often delayed due to challenges associated with regulatory analysis and current consultation requirements.”123 It further explained the need to reduce regulatory obstacles to fuel reduction in forests created by the National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act.124 The next Administration should: l Champion executive action, consistent with law, and proactive legislation to reduce wildfires. This would involve embracing Executive Order 13855, building upon it, and working with lawmakers to promote active management of vegetation, reduce regulatory obstacles to reducing fuel buildup, and increase timber sales.

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.

Full Policy Text

Related Bills