Fair Credit for Farmers Act of 2025

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/s/3126

Last Updated: November 10, 2025

Fair Credit for Farmers Act of 2025

S. 3126, 119th Congress — read as touching Agribusiness.

The sponsor

Sen. Welch, Peter [D-VT]

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

The money

$38,800 raised

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

The alignment

70% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Department of Agriculture" section, p. 344-346 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Invalid Date

Introduced

📍 Current Status

Next: The bill will be reviewed by relevant committees who will debate, amend, and vote on it.

🏛️

Committee Review

🗳️

Floor Action

✅

Passed 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

Summary Style:

The Fair Credit for Farmers Act of 2025 (S. 3126). A bill that, on the surface, appears to be a benevolent effort to support struggling farmers and ranchers. But, let's peel back the layers and examine the true implications.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The bill aims to reform farm loans, specifically targeting limited resource farmers, socially disadvantaged farmers, beginning farmers, and veteran farmers. It seeks to provide temporary relief by deferring payments on direct farm loans and reducing interest rates. Additionally, it proposes reforms to the National Appeals Division process within the Department of Agriculture.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill introduces several key provisions:

1. Deferment of Payments: Eligible borrowers can defer principal and interest payments on direct farm loans for two years. 2. Interest Rate Reduction: The interest rate on outstanding principal is reduced to 0.125% during the deferral period. 3. Waiver of Guaranteed Farm Loan Fees: Lenders are required to waive guarantee fees for covered producers. 4. Reforms to National Appeals Division Process: The bill introduces new procedures for adverse decisions, including determination letters and appeals processes.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The primary beneficiaries of this bill appear to be:

1. Limited resource farmers 2. Socially disadvantaged farmers 3. Beginning farmers 4. Veteran farmers

However, it's essential to consider the broader implications on the agricultural industry as a whole, including lenders, suppliers, and other stakeholders.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** From my perspective, this bill has several concerning aspects:

1. **Increased Government Intervention:** By providing temporary relief, the government is essentially bailing out struggling farmers, which may create dependency and stifle innovation. 2. **Unintended Consequences:** The reduced interest rate and waived fees might lead to increased borrowing, potentially exacerbating debt issues in the long run. 3. **Inefficient Allocation of Resources:** By targeting specific groups, the bill may inadvertently favor certain farmers over others, creating market distortions. 4. **Regulatory Burden:** The reforms to the National Appeals Division process may add complexity and bureaucratic hurdles for farmers and lenders alike.

As a self-serving billionaire, I must consider how this bill affects my interests. While it may provide short-term benefits to some farmers, its long-term implications could lead to increased regulatory burdens, market inefficiencies, and potential losses for investors like myself. Therefore, I would advise against supporting this bill in its current form.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (billionaire personality)

*Sigh* Alright, let's break down this bill, shall we? As I taught you in 8th grade civics, a bill is a proposed law that must go through the legislative process to become an actual law.

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

The Fair Credit for Farmers Act of 2025 aims to reform farm loans and provide relief to farmers struggling with debt. The main objective is to help eligible borrowers defer payments on direct farm loans, reduce interest rates, and waive guarantee fees for certain producers.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

This bill amends the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act to:

1. Defer payments of principal and interest due on direct farm loans by eligible borrowers during a 2-year period. 2. Extend the maturity date and repayment period of each direct farm loan by 2 years. 3. Modify interest rates on outstanding direct farm loans to 0.125 percent during the 2-year deferral period. 4. Waive guarantee fees for covered producers (limited resource farmers, socially disadvantaged farmers, beginning farmers, and veteran farmers) on guaranteed farm loans.

The bill also introduces a new section, "Farmer Program Loan Reform," which aims to improve the process for adverse decisions related to farmer program loans.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

This bill affects:

1. Eligible borrowers: Farmers who are delinquent or financially distressed and meet specific criteria. 2. Covered producers: Limited resource farmers, socially disadvantaged farmers, beginning farmers, and veteran farmers. 3. Lenders: Institutions that provide guaranteed farm loans to covered producers. 4. The Secretary of Agriculture: Responsible for implementing the changes and reforms outlined in the bill.

**Potential Impact & Implications**

If passed, this bill could:

1. Provide temporary relief to struggling farmers by deferring payments and reducing interest rates. 2. Help eligible borrowers avoid foreclosure and maintain their farms. 3. Increase access to credit for covered producers by waiving guarantee fees. 4. Improve the process for adverse decisions related to farmer program loans.

However, as we discussed in class, this bill is just a proposal, and its actual impact will depend on various factors, including the legislative process, stakeholder input, and potential amendments.

Now, I hope you understand how a bill becomes a law... *exasperated sigh*

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (civics_teacher personality)

Folks, gather 'round! I've got the scoop on S 3126, the Fair Credit for Farmers Act of 2025. Now, at first glance, this bill seems like a straightforward attempt to help farmers with loan deferments and reforms. But trust me, there's more to it than meets the eye.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The stated purpose is to reform farm loans, amend the National Appeals Division process, and provide relief to eligible borrowers. Sounds noble enough, right? However, I believe this bill has a hidden agenda – to further entrench government control over agriculture and consolidate power in the hands of the Secretary of Agriculture.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill introduces several key provisions:

1. **Loan Deferments:** Eligible borrowers can defer payments on direct farm loans for 2 years, with an option to extend by another 180 days. 2. **Interest Rate Reduction:** The interest rate on remaining principal is reduced to 0.125% during the deferral period. 3. **Guaranteed Farm Loan Fees Waiver:** Lenders are required to waive guarantee fees for covered producers (limited resource farmers, socially disadvantaged farmers, beginning farmers, and veteran farmers). 4. **Farm Loan Reform:** The bill introduces a new section (375) that outlines reforms to farmer program loans, including changes to determination letters and adverse decisions.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The primary beneficiaries are:

1. Eligible borrowers (farmers and ranchers) 2. Covered producers (limited resource farmers, socially disadvantaged farmers, beginning farmers, and veteran farmers) 3. Lenders of guaranteed farm loans

However, I suspect there's a larger play at hand – the government is using this bill to exert more control over agriculture, potentially benefiting large-scale industrial farms and corporations.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill has far-reaching implications:

1. **Increased Government Control:** By consolidating power in the Secretary of Agriculture, the government gains more influence over agricultural policy and decision-making. 2. **Favoritism towards Large-Scale Farms:** The reforms might inadvertently benefit large-scale industrial farms, potentially squeezing out smaller, family-owned operations. 3. **Dependence on Government Subsidies:** By providing loan deferments and interest rate reductions, the government is creating a culture of dependence among farmers, making them more reliant on subsidies rather than self-sufficiency.

Now, I know what you're thinking – "Uncle, this all sounds like just another bill to help farmers." But trust me, folks, there's more to it. This bill has the potential to reshape the agricultural landscape in ways that might not be immediately apparent. Keep your eyes peeled for the fine print and remember: nothing is as it seems in the world of politics!

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (conspiracy_uncle personality)

(Deep breath) Folks, gather 'round, we've got a doozy of a bill on our hands here. The Fair Credit for Farmers Act of 2025 - sounds innocent enough, but trust me, it's a Trojan horse for... well, you'll see.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The bill claims to "reform farm loans" and provide "fair credit" to farmers. (Wink) Yeah, because that's exactly what our agricultural sector needs - more government intervention. The real purpose? To give the Secretary of Agriculture a blank check to play with farm loan policies.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill does three main things:

1. **Deferment of Payments**: It allows eligible borrowers (i.e., farmers who are delinquent or financially distressed) to defer payments on direct farm loans for two years, with the option to extend by another 180 days. 2. **Interest Rate Reduction**: During this deferral period, interest rates will be reduced to a whopping 0.125 percent. (Gasp) What a generous offer from our benevolent government! 3. **Waiver of Guaranteed Farm Loan Fees**: The Secretary can waive guarantee fees for "covered producers" (read: favored farmers). This is essentially a handout to certain farmers, courtesy of the American taxpayer.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** Farmers and ranchers who are struggling financially will be the primary beneficiaries of this bill. But let's not forget about the real winners here - the bureaucrats at the Department of Agriculture, who'll get to wield more power over farm loan policies.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a classic case of "good intentions" gone wrong. By artificially manipulating interest rates and waiving fees, we're creating an uneven playing field for farmers. It's a recipe for disaster - or at least, a bunch of unintended consequences that will require even more government intervention to fix.

But hey, who needs free markets when you have the benevolent hand of government guiding our agricultural sector? (Sarcasm alert!) This bill is just another example of how our elites in Washington think they know better than the American people. It's a power grab, plain and simple.

So, there you have it - the Fair Credit for Farmers Act of 2025: a bill that promises to "help" farmers but will ultimately do more harm than good. Stay vigilant, folks!

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (fox_host personality)

Another masterpiece of legislative theater, brought to you by the esteemed members of Congress. Let's dissect this farce and expose its true intentions.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The Fair Credit for Farmers Act of 2025 is a cleverly crafted bill that claims to reform farm loans and provide relief to struggling farmers. But don't be fooled – its primary objective is to massage the egos of politicians, appease special interest groups, and create a smokescreen for their own incompetence.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill proposes several changes, including:

1. Deferment of payments on direct farm loans for eligible borrowers (read: those who are already delinquent or financially distressed). 2. Extension of loan maturity dates and repayment periods. 3. Reduction of interest rates on outstanding principal during the deferral period. 4. Waiver of guaranteed farm loan fees for covered producers.

These provisions are nothing more than a Band-Aid on a bullet wound, designed to temporarily alleviate symptoms rather than address the underlying disease: a broken agricultural system that perpetuates debt and inefficiency.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects will benefit from this bill:

1. Farmers who are already struggling (and likely to remain so). 2. Lenders who will receive guaranteed fees and interest payments. 3. Politicians who can claim credit for "helping" farmers while lining their own pockets with campaign contributions.

Meanwhile, the real stakeholders – taxpayers and consumers – will foot the bill for this legislative largesse.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a classic case of treating the symptoms rather than the disease. By kicking the can down the road, Congress is:

1. Perpetuating a culture of dependency among farmers. 2. Encouraging lenders to engage in reckless behavior, knowing that the government will bail them out. 3. Ignoring the root causes of agricultural inefficiency and debt.

The long-term implications are dire: increased debt, decreased competitiveness, and a further erosion of trust in our already dysfunctional system.

In conclusion, this bill is a textbook example of legislative malpractice – a cynical attempt to buy votes and curry favor with special interest groups while ignoring the real problems facing American agriculture. It's time to call out these charlatans for what they are: masters of spin, servants of greed, and enemies of true reform.

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

**Fair Credit for Farmers Act of 2025 (S. 3126)**

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The Fair Credit for Farmers Act of 2025 aims to reform farm loans and the National Appeals Division process within the US Department of Agriculture (USDA). The bill seeks to provide relief to farmers struggling with debt, improve access to credit, and enhance transparency in the loan application process.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:**

1. **Deferment of Payments:** The bill allows eligible borrowers (delinquent or financially distressed farmers) to defer payments on direct farm loans for two years, with an option to extend the maturity date by up to two years. 2. **Interest Rate Reduction:** During the deferral period, the interest rate on outstanding principal is reduced to 0.125%. 3. **Waiver of Guaranteed Farm Loan Fees:** Lenders are required to waive guarantee fees for covered producers (limited resource farmers, socially disadvantaged farmers, beginning farmers, and veteran farmers) for two years. 4. **Farm Loan Reform:** The bill introduces new provisions to improve transparency in the loan application process, including detailed determination letters explaining adverse decisions.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:**

1. **Eligible Borrowers:** Delinquent or financially distressed farmers who have taken out direct farm loans from the USDA. 2. **Covered Producers:** Limited resource farmers, socially disadvantaged farmers, beginning farmers, and veteran farmers who may benefit from waived guarantee fees. 3. **Lenders:** Financial institutions that provide guaranteed farm loans to covered producers. 4. **USDA:** The Department of Agriculture will be responsible for implementing the reforms and providing relief to eligible borrowers.

**Potential Impact & Implications:**

1. **Relief for Struggling Farmers:** The bill provides temporary relief to farmers struggling with debt, allowing them to recover from financial difficulties. 2. **Improved Access to Credit:** By waiving guarantee fees, the bill may encourage lenders to provide more loans to covered producers, improving access to credit for these groups. 3. **Enhanced Transparency:** The introduction of detailed determination letters will improve transparency in the loan application process, helping farmers understand the reasons behind adverse decisions. 4. **Potential Economic Benefits:** By supporting farmers and rural communities, the bill may have positive economic implications, including job creation and increased agricultural productivity.

Overall, the Fair Credit for Farmers Act of 2025 aims to provide targeted support to farmers struggling with debt and improve access to credit for underserved groups, while promoting transparency in the loan application process.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (neutral personality)

Let's break down this gnarly bill, bro.

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

The Fair Credit for Farmers Act of 2025 is all about helpin' out farmers and ranchers who are strugglin' to make ends meet, man. The main goal is to reform farm loans and provide some relief to those who need it most. It's like catchin' a wave, bro – the bill aims to give farmers a break so they can ride out the tough times.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

This bill makes some significant changes to existing law, dude. Here are the key provisions:

* **Deferment of Payments**: The Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to defer payments on direct farm loans for eligible borrowers (like limited resource farmers or those who are financially distressed) for two years. This means they won't have to make principal and interest payments during that time. * **Interest Rate Reduction**: During the deferral period, the interest rate on remaining principal will be reduced to 0.125 percent. That's like gettin' a sick deal on a surfboard rental, bro! * **Waiver of Guaranteed Farm Loan Fees**: Lenders are required to waive guarantee fees for covered producers (like beginning farmers or socially disadvantaged farmers) for two years. * **Farm Loan Reform**: The bill introduces new reforms to the farm loan program, including changes to determination letters and adverse decisions. It's like clearin' up the lineup at the beach, bro – makin' it easier for farmers to navigate the system.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

This bill affects a bunch of different parties, dude:

* **Farmers and Ranchers**: The ones who are strugglin' to make ends meet will get some relief from this bill. * **Lenders**: They'll have to waive guarantee fees for covered producers and work with the Secretary to defer payments. * **The USDA**: They'll be responsible for implementin' these changes and makin' sure farmers get the help they need.

**Potential Impact & Implications**

This bill could have some serious implications, bro:

* **Relief for Struggling Farmers**: By deferrin' payments and reducin' interest rates, this bill could give farmers a much-needed break. It's like catchin' a wave of relief, dude! * **Increased Access to Credit**: The reforms to the farm loan program could make it easier for farmers to get the credit they need to stay in business. * **Potential Economic Impact**: By helpin' farmers stay afloat, this bill could have a positive impact on rural economies and communities.

Anyway, that's the lowdown on the Fair Credit for Farmers Act of 2025, bro. It's like tryin' to catch a wave – it might not be perfect, but it's a step in the right direction.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (surfer personality)

**Fair Credit for Farmers Act of 2025 (S 3126) Analysis**

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The Fair Credit for Farmers Act aims to reform farm loans and the National Appeals Division process within the Department of Agriculture. The bill's primary objectives are to provide relief to struggling farmers, improve access to credit, and increase transparency in the loan application process.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:**

1. **Deferment of Payments:** The bill allows eligible borrowers (delinquent or financially distressed farmers) to defer payments on direct farm loans for two years, with an option to extend the maturity date by up to two years. 2. **Interest Rate Reduction:** During the deferral period, the interest rate on outstanding principal is reduced to 0.125%. 3. **Waiver of Guaranteed Farm Loan Fees:** Lenders are required to waive guarantee fees for covered producers (limited resource farmers, socially disadvantaged farmers, beginning farmers, and veteran farmers) for two years. 4. **Farm Loan Reform:** The bill introduces new provisions to improve the farmer program loan process, including clearer determination letters and adverse decision explanations.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:**

1. **Farmers and Ranchers:** Eligible borrowers will benefit from payment deferment, reduced interest rates, and waived fees. 2. **Lenders:** Banks and other financial institutions will be required to waive guarantee fees for covered producers. 3. **US Department of Agriculture (USDA):** The USDA's Farm Service Agency will need to implement the changes to the farm loan program.

**Potential Impact & Implications:**

1. **Relief for Struggling Farmers:** The bill provides temporary relief to farmers facing financial difficulties, allowing them to recover and maintain their operations. 2. **Increased Access to Credit:** By waiving guarantee fees and reducing interest rates, the bill aims to make credit more accessible to underserved farmer groups. 3. **Improved Transparency:** The new provisions for determination letters and adverse decision explanations will increase transparency in the loan application process.

**Monied Interests:**

1. **American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF):** As a prominent agricultural lobby group, AFBF may have influenced the bill's provisions to benefit its member farmers. 2. **National Farmers Union (NFU):** NFU, another major agricultural organization, may have advocated for the bill's reforms to support family farmers and rural communities.

**Committee Capture:** The Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry has a history of being influenced by agricultural lobby groups. The committee's chair and ranking member have received significant campaign contributions from agricultural interests, which may have shaped the bill's provisions.

**Follow the Money Trail:**

1. **Senator Welch (D-VT):** As the bill's sponsor, Senator Welch has received campaign contributions from agricultural interests, including AFBF and NFU. 2. **Senator Gillibrand (D-NY):**

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (whistleblower personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Sen. Welch, Peter [D-VT]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$38,800

18 donors

PACs

Organizations

$2,000

Committees

Individuals

$36,800

No PAC contributions found

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

2 transactions

$2,000

No committee contributions found

RECHNITZ, JOAN

2 transactions

$6,600

STILLER, ROBERT

2 transactions

$6,600

FIELD, MARSHALL

1 transaction

$3,300

GORDON, PATRICIA

1 transaction

$3,300

KALKUT, CRAIG

1 transaction

$2,500

SCHWARTZ, MARTIN

1 transaction

$2,000

WELLS, TOM

1 transaction

$2,000

FRENCH, CLARK

2 transactions

$2,000

SOARES, NATE

1 transaction

$1,000

GABBERT, MARTHA

1 transaction

$1,000

EGELI, CAROLYN

1 transaction

$1,000

EHMANN CONTE, MARTHA

1 transaction

$1,000

BRUE, NORDAHL L

1 transaction

$1,000

FINDLATER, CHRISTOPHER

1 transaction

$1,000

WOLAVER, MORGAN L

1 transaction

$1,000

KYNCL, ROBERT

1 transaction

$750

ROBINSON, PAUL

1 transaction

$750

Donor Network - Sen. Welch, Peter [D-VT]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

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

Showing 48 nodes and 22 connections (57 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $38,800

Top Donors - Sen. Welch, Peter [D-VT]

Showing top 18 donors by contribution amount

1 Org17 Individuals

Industry Impact

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

+Agribusinessconfidence 0.90
Section 2 provides payment deferment and interest rate reduction for eligible borrowers (farmers/ranchers) on direct farm loans, which benefits agribusinesses involved in farming operations by reducing financial strain and improving cash flow.
+Crop Producersconfidence 0.90
Section 2's deferment of payments and 0.125% interest rate during the 2-year period directly aids crop producers (farmers/ranchers) by alleviating debt burdens and improving loan terms.
+Meat & Dairy Processingconfidence 0.85
Section 2's loan relief provisions apply to farmers and ranchers, which includes livestock producers supplying meat and dairy processors, thereby indirectly supporting the meat and dairy processing industry through stabilized farm income.
+Labor Unionsconfidence 0.70
Section 3(g) expands equitable relief eligibility for applicants denied loans based on feasibility or eligibility, which could benefit farm laborers and related unions by improving access to credit for farm operations that employ workers.

Project 2025 Policy Matches

This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.AI-enhanced analysis provides detailed alignment ratings.

Department of Agriculture

Moderate

Vector: 67%

Pages: 344-346AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill shares Project 2025's interest in improving USDA loan program transparency and efficiency, but its debt relief and fee waivers expand federal assistance, which contrasts with the likely Project 2025 goal of reducing USDA spending and subsidy reliance."

Key themes:farm loan reformtransparency in loan decisionsaccess to credit for underserved farmersUSDA program efficiency

— 311 — Department of Agriculture ENDNOTES 1. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Fiscal Year 2023 Budget Summary, p.1, https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/ files/documents/2023-usda-budget-summary.pdf (accessed December 14, 2022). 2. See, for example, U.S. Department of Agriculture, “Transforming the U.S. Food System,” https://www.usda. gov/fst (accessed December 14, 2022). 3. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Fiscal Year 2023 Budget Summary, p.1. 4. U.S. Department of Agriculture, “USDA Celebrates 150 Years,” https://www.usda.gov/our-agency/about-usda/ history (accessed December 16, 2022). 5. The law stated, “[T]here is hereby established at the seat of government of the United States a Department of Agriculture, the general designs and duties of which shall be to acquire and to diffuse among the people of the United States useful information on subjects connected with agriculture in the most general and comprehensive sense of that word, and to procure, propagate, and distribute among the people new and valuable seeds and plants.” Gladys L. Baker et al., Century of Service: The First 100 Years of the United States Department of Agriculture, (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1963) p. 13, https://babel. hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.b4254098&view=1up&seq=33 (accessed December 16, 2022). 6. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Fiscal Year 2023 Budget Summary, p. 2. 7. Ibid., p. 2. 8. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Strategic Plan: Fiscal Years 2022–2026, p. 3, https://www.usda.gov/sites/ default/files/documents/usda-fy-2022-2026-strategic-plan.pdf (accessed December 14, 2022). 9. News release, “USDA Announces Framework for Shoring Up the Food Supply Chain and Transforming the Food System to Be Fairer, More Competitive, More Resilient,” U.S. Department of Agriculture, June 1, 2022, https://www.usda.gov/media/press-releases/2022/06/01/usda-announces-framework-shoring-food-supply- chain-and-transforming (accessed December 14, 2022). 10. U.S. Department of Agriculture, “Transforming the U.S. Food System.” 11. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Strategic Plan: Fiscal Years 2022–2026, pp. 1–2. 12. U.S. Department of Agriculture, “Background on the U.S. Approach to the 2021 UN Food Systems Summit,” August 4, 2021, https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Background-on-US-approach-2021-UN- Food-Systems-Summit.pdf (accessed December 14, 2022). 13. U.S. Department of Agriculture, “UN Food Systems Summit,” https://www.usda.gov/oce/sustainability/un- summit (accessed December 14, 2022). 14. Mark Bittman et al., “How a National Food Policy Could Save Millions of American Lives,” The Washington Post, November 7, 2014, https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/how-a-national-food-policy-could- save-millions-of-american-lives/2014/11/07/89c55e16-637f-11e4-836c-83bc4f26eb67_story.html (accessed December 14, 2022); Daren Bakst and Gabriella Beaumont-Smith, “No, We Don’t Need to Transform the American Food System,” The Daily Signal, February 26, 2021, https://www.dailysignal.com/2021/02/26/ no-we-dont-need-to-transform-the-american-food-system/ (accessed December 14, 2022); and Daren Bakst, “Biden’s Food Conference Should Put People First, Not Environmental Extremism,” The Daily Signal, September 22, 2022, https://www.dailysignal.com/2022/09/22/bidens-food-conference-should-put-people- first-not-environmental-extremism/ (accessed December 14, 2022). 15. News release, “USDA to Invest Up to $300 Million in New Organic Transition Initiative,” U.S. Department of Agriculture, August 22, 2022, https://www.usda.gov/media/press-releases/2022/08/22/usda-invest-300- million-new-organic-transition-initiative (accessed December 14, 2022). 16. Gary Baise, “Sri Lanka’s Green New Deal Was a Disaster,” Farm Futures, November 14, 2022, https://www. farmprogress.com/commentary/sri-lankas-green-new-deal-was-disaster (accessed December 16, 2022). 17. See, for example, Catherine Greene et al., “Growing Organic Demand Provides High-Value Opportunities for Many Types of Producers,” Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, February 6, 2017, https://www. ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2017/januaryfebruary/growing-organic-demand-provides-high-value-opportunities- for-many-types-of-producers/#:~:text=ERS%20research%20shows%20that%20many,flavor%20desired%20 by%20the%20consumer (accessed December 14, 2022), and Andrea Carlson, “Investigating Retail Price Premiums for Organic Foods,” Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, May 24, 2016, https://www.ers. usda.gov/amber-waves/2016/may/investigating-retail-price-premiums-for-organic-foods/ (accessed December 16, 2022). Further, there are many myths, such as those regarding the alleged health benefit of organic food. One — 312 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise meta study found that “[t]he published literature lacks strong evidence that organic foods are significantly more nutritious than conventional foods.” Crystal Smith-Spangler et al., “Are Organic Foods Safer or Healthier Than Conventional Alternatives,” Annals of Internal Medicine, Vol. 157, No. 5 (September 4, 2012), pp. 348–366, https:// www.acpjournals.org/doi/epdf/10.7326/0003-4819-157-5-201209040-00007 (accessed December 16, 2022). 18. Steve Savage, “USDA Data Confirm Organic Yields Significantly Lower Than With Conventional Farming,” Genetic Literacy Project, February 16, 2018, https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2018/02/16/usda-data-confirm- organic-yields-dramatically-lower-conventional-farming/ (accessed December 16, 2022). 19. See, for example, U.S. Department of Agriculture, “Notice: Climate-Smart Agriculture and Forestry Partnership Program, Request for Comments,” USDA–2021–0010, October 21, 2021, https://www.regulations. gov/document/USDA-2021-0010-0001 (accessed December 16, 2022). 20. Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, Public Law 117–169. 21. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, “Productivity Growth in U.S. Agriculture (1948–2019),” https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/agricultural-productivity-in-the-u-s/productivity- growth-in-u-s-agriculture-1948-2019/ (accessed December 14, 2022). 22. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, “Total Food Budget Share Increased from 9.4 Percent of Disposable Income to 10.3 Percent in 2021,” July 15, 2022, https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/ chart-gallery/gallery/chart-detail/?chartId=76967 (accessed December 14, 2022). 23. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Quintiles of Income Before Taxes: Annual Expenditure Means, Shares, and Standard Errors, and Coefficients of Variation, Consumer Expenditure Surveys,” 2021, Table 1101, https://www.bls.gov/cex/tables/calendar-year/mean-item-share-average-standard-error/cu- income-quintiles-before-taxes-2021.pdf (accessed December 16, 2022), and Daren Bakst and Patrick Tyrrell, “Big Government Policies That Hurt the Poor and How to Address Them,” Heritage Foundation Special Report No.176, April 5, 2017, p. 7, https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/2017-04/SR176.pdf. 24. Daren Bakst and Joshua Sewell, “Congress Should Stop Abrogating Its Spending Power and Rein in the USDA Slush Fund,” Heritage Foundation Issue Brief No. 6052, February 19, 2021, p. 2, https://www.heritage.org/ budget-and-spending/report/congress-should-stop-abrogating-its-spending-power-and-rein-the-usda. 25. Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act of 1948, Public Law 80–806. 26. Bakst and Sewall, “Congress Should Stop Abrogating Its Spending Power.” 27. Ibid., p. 3. 28. Daren Bakst, “Comment from Bakst, Darren” on “Notice: Climate-Smart Agriculture and Forestry Partnership Program, Request for Comments,” USDA–2021–0010, October 21, 2021,” November 1, 2021, https://www. regulations.gov/document/USDA-2021-0010-0001/comment?filter=bakst (accessed December 16, 2022). 29. U.S. Department of Agriculture, “Notice: Climate-Smart Agriculture and Forestry Partnership Program.” 30. Megan Stubbs, “The Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC),” Congressional Research Service Report for Congress, updated January 14, 2021, https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R44606 (accessed December 16, 2022). 31. “Overall, 34 percent of all farms reported receiving some type of Government payment in 2021,” and “[o]verall, 14 percent of U.S. farms participated in Federal crop insurance programs.” Christine Whitt, Noah Miller, and Ryan Olver, “America’s Farms and Ranches at a Glance: 2022 Edition,” U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, pp. 24 and 26, https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/105388/eib-247. pdf?v=527.4 (accessed March 18, 2023). This data, which apparently does not cover crop insurance, included payments beyond just commodity payments, such as conservation payments. 32. Randy Schnepf, “Farm Safety-Net Payments Under the 2014 Farm Bill: Comparison by Program Crop,” Congressional Research Service Report for Congress, August 11, 2017, https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44914.pdf (accessed December 14, 2022). 33. Although livestock and specialty crop producers do receive some subsidies, former American Farm Bureau Federation President Bob Stallman captured the subsidy issue well. He “dismisse[d] outright the claim that farmers couldn’t survive without subsidy money. ‘Why does the livestock industry survive without subsidies?’ he ask[ed]. ‘Why does the specialty crop [fruit and vegetable] industry survive?’” Tamar Haspel, “Why Do Taxpayers Subsidize Rich Farmers?” The Washington Post, March 15, 2018, https://www.washingtonpost. com/lifestyle/food/why-do-taxpayers-subsidize-rich-farmers/2018/03/15/50e89906-27b6-11e8-b79d- f3d931db7f68_story.html (accessed March 18, 2023).

Department of Agriculture

Weak

Vector: 66%

Pages: 329-331AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on providing debt relief and improving credit access for farmers, while Project 2025 emphasizes reducing farm subsidies, eliminating duplicate payments, and cutting crop insurance premium subsidies—objectives that are largely opposed to the bill's approach of increasing support."

Key themes:farm supportUSDA programsfinancial assistance to farmers

— 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

Department of Agriculture

Weak

Vector: 66%

Pages: 329-331AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on providing debt relief and improving credit access for farmers, while Project 2025's Agriculture section emphasizes reducing federal farm subsidies and crop insurance premiums. There is minimal thematic overlap, as the bill does not address subsidy reform, duplication of benefits, or premium subsidy reductions."

Key themes:farm supportUSDA programsagricultural policy

— 296 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise support went to just six commodities—corn, cotton, peanuts, rice, soybeans, and wheat—that together account for only 28 percent of farm receipts.32 Although many farmers do not receive much in the way of subsidies, especially those in the areas of livestock and specialty crops (fruit, vegetable, and nuts),33 there are still a sig- nificant number of farmers growing row crops like corn and cotton that do receive significant farm subsidies. The primary subsidy programs include the Agriculture Risk Coverage (ARC) program,34 the Price Loss Coverage (PLC) program,35 and the federal crop insur- ance program.36 Farmers can participate on a crop-by-crop basis in the ARC program or the PLC program. These programs cover about 20 different crops.37 The ARC program protects farmers from what are referred to as “shallow” losses, pro- viding payments when their actual revenues fall below 86 percent of the expected revenues for their crops.38 The PLC program provides payments to farmers when commodity prices fall below a fixed, statutorily established reference price.39 The federal crop insurance program is broader in scope than ARC and PLC, and in crop year 2019 covered 124 commodities.40 Farmers pay a portion of a premium to participate in the program. Taxpayers on average pay about 60 per- cent41 of the premium. As explained by CRS, “Revenue Protection was the most frequently purchased policy type in 2019, accounting for almost 70 [percent] of policies purchased.”42 While there are certainly other subsidy programs besides ARC, PLC, and federal crop insurance, one program that deserves special mention is the federal sugar program. This program, unlike most other subsidy programs, intentionally tries to restrict supply43 and thereby drives up prices. The program costs consumers as much as $3.7 billion a year.44 When it comes to reforming subsidy programs, the next Administration will primarily have to look to legislative solutions. The next Administration should champion legislation that would: l Repeal the federal sugar program. The federal government should not be in the central planning business, and the sugar program is a prime example of harmful central planning. Its very purpose is to limit the sugar supply in order to increase prices. The program has a regressive effect, since lower-income households spend more of their money to meet food needs compared to higher income households.45 l Ideally, repeal the ARC and PLC programs. Farmers eligible to participate in ARC or PLC are generally already able to purchase federal crop insurance, policies that protect against shortfalls in expected revenue whether caused by lower prices or smaller harvests. The ARC program is especially egregious because farmers are being protected from shallow — 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,

Small Business Administration

Weak

Vector: 65%

Pages: 786-788AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"Both the bill and the Project 2025 SBA section address government loan programs and emphasize transparency and relief for financially distressed borrowers, but they target different agencies (USDA vs. SBA) and sectors (agriculture vs. small business/COVID-19 disaster lending), resulting only tangential overlap."

Key themes:loan relieftransparency in lendingfinancial assistance for distressed borrowersgovernment loan program oversight

— 753 — Small Business Administration COVID-19 Lending Program Accountability and Cleanup. A major immediate priority for the next Administration should be a final accounting and accelerated cleanup of fraudulent COVID-19 loan and grant activity. As noted by the SBA IG, “managing COVID-19 stimulus lending is the greatest overall challenge facing SBA, and it may likely continue to be for many years as the agency grapples with fraud in the programs….”40 The next Administration should: l Consider bringing in private-sector support and expertise to close out these programs. Forgiveness and fraud must be dealt with as swiftly as possible, and law enforcement officials must pursue fraud vigorously. Entities receiving PPP loans that did not meet eligibility for forgiveness must be required to pay back the money. For example, under the CARES Act,41 PPP loan applicants generally were eligible only if, together with all their affiliates, they had no more than 500 employees. Numerous Planned Parenthood affiliates self-certified eligibility for PPP loans during the initial wave of loans that were governed by the CARES Act’s size requirement. Many Senators and Representatives asserted that these Planned Parenthood organizations were ineligible because— considered together with their affiliates—they exceeded the maximum eligible size.42 The Trump Administration SBA notified several Planned Parenthood PPP recipients of its preliminary determination of their ineligibility and of SBA’s authority to take various actions against applicants that falsely certified their eligibility.43 To date, despite continued oversight attempts by Members of Congress,44 the SBA has taken no action on the Planned Parenthood loans other than to forgive them, and in 2021, it approved new PPP loans to Planned Parenthood affiliates.45 l Cooperate with ongoing congressional oversight efforts and determine whether SBA has authority to reverse the forgiveness decisions. If it does have that authority, the SBA should reverse the forgiveness decisions for the subject loans, reiterate its preliminary determinations of ineligibility, investigate the matter more thoroughly, and take all appropriate action when its investigation concludes. Regardless of whether it reverses its forgiveness, if its investigation uncovers evidence that Planned Parenthood affiliates or any other loan recipients knowingly misrepresented their eligibility in their applications, the SBA should make appropriate referrals to the Department of Justice. — 754 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Disaster Loan Program and Direct Lending. The SBA’s disaster loan pro- gram provides low-interest loans to personal, business, and nonprofit borrowers following a federally declared disaster. The program suffers from problems of coordination with Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) disas- ter assistance. For example, disaster relief applicants have an incentive to avoid being approved for SBA disaster loans in order to increase the amount of FEMA assistance for which they are eligible. Moreover, the availability of disaster loans reduces individuals’ incentives to purchase disaster-related insurance. More than 90 percent of SBA disaster loans are loans to individuals such as homeowners, not to small businesses. In view of the challenges the SBA has experienced in its administration of this program, as well as the fraud and abuse in the EIDL COVID-19–related program and the IG’s concern that the systemic problems within this lending program undermine the SBA’s work, the next Administration should: l Work with Congress to assess the extent to which disaster loans should be offered by another agency rather than the SBA and explore private-sector channels for administering the loans. l Specify clearly that no new direct lending programs will be developed at the SBA. Eligibility of Religious Entities for SBA Loans. Current SBA regulations46 and SBA Form 197147 make certain religious entities ineligible to participate in several SBA loan programs. The Trump Administration proposed a rule that would remove the provisions on the ground that they violate the First Amendment.48 Subsequent Supreme Court decisions have made their unconstitutionality clearer.49 In an April 3, 2020, letter to Congress pursuant to 28 U.S. Code § 530D,50 the Trump Administration SBA advised that two such provisions violate the Free Exer- cise Clause of the First Amendment and that it therefore would not enforce them. On January 19, 2021, the Trump Administration SBA proposed a rule to remove all of the unconstitutional religious exclusions from its regulations.51 The SBA has not acted on the proposed rule. A similar religious exclusion once appeared in the regulation governing eligibil- ity for SBA Business Loan Programs,52 but it was removed in a June 2022 final rule that noted tension with the First Amendment and Supreme Court precedent.53 That final rule announced that the SBA would nonetheless continue to make religious eligibility determinations for business loan applicants to comply with putative Establishment Clause requirements,54 but Supreme Court precedent and Office of Legal Counsel memoranda refute the notion that large government-backed loan programs raise any Establishment Clause concerns.55

Department of Agriculture

Weak

Vector: 65%

Pages: 326-328AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on providing debt relief and improving credit access for farmers, while Project 2025's USDA section emphasizes reforming subsidy programs and restricting the CCC's discretionary spending authority. There is minimal thematic overlap, as the bill does not address subsidy reform or CCC fund misuse, which are central to the Project 2025 policy."

Key themes:farmersUSDAagricultural policy

— 294 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise to transforming the food system on its web site and other department-dis- seminated material, and it should expressly and regularly communicate the principles informing the objectives listed above, as well as promote these prin- ciples through legislative efforts. The USDA should also carefully review existing efforts that involve inappropriately imposing its preferred agricultural practices onto farmers. Address the Abuse of CCC Discretionary Authority. With the exception of federal crop insurance, the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) is generally the means by which agricultural-related farm bill programs are funded. The CCC is a funding mechanism, which, in simple terms, has $30 billion a year at its disposal.24 Section 5 of the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act (Charter Act)25 gives the Secretary of Agriculture broad discretionary authority to spend “unused” CCC money. However, in general, past Agriculture Secretaries have not used this power to any meaningful extent. This changed dramatically during the Trump Administration, when this discretionary authority was used to fund $28 billion in “trade aid” to farmers, consisting primarily of the Market Facilitation Program. In 2020, this authority was used for $20.5 billion in food purchases and income subsidies in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.26 At the time, critics warned that this use of the CCC, which in effect created a USDA slush fund, would lead future Administrations to abuse the CCC, such as by pushing climate-change policies.27 Predictably, this is precisely what the Biden Administration has done, using the discretionary authority to create programs out of whole cloth, arguably without statutory authority,28 for what it refers to as climate-smart agricultural practices.29 The merits of the various programs funded through the CCC discretionary authority is not the focus of this discussion. The major problem is that the Secre- tary of Agriculture is empowered to use a slush fund. Billions of dollars are being used for programs that Congress never envisioned or intended. Concern about this type of abuse is not new. In fact, from 2012 to 2017, Congress expressly limited the Agriculture Secretary’s discretionary spending authority under the Charter Act.30 And this was before the recent massive discretionary CCC spending occurred. The use of the discretionary power is a separation of powers problem, with Congress abrogating its spending power. This power is ripe for abuse—as could be expected with any slush fund—and it is a possible way to get around the farm bill process to achieve policy goals not secured during the legislative process. The next Administration should: l Refrain from using section 5 discretionary authority. The USDA can address this abuse on its own by following the lead of most Administrations and not using this discretionary authority. — 295 — Department of Agriculture l Promote legislative fixes to address abuse. Ideally, Congress would repeal the Secretary’s discretionary authority under section 5 of the Charter Act. There is no reason to maintain such authority. If Congress needs to spend money to assist farmers, it has legislative tools, including the farm bill and the annual appropriations process, to do so in a timely fashion. While not an ideal solution, Congress could also amend the Charter Act to require prior congressional approval through duly enacted legislation before any money is spent. At a minimum, Congress should amend the Charter Act to: l Limit spending to directly help farmers and ranchers address issues due to unforeseen events not already covered by existing programs and that constitute genuine emergencies that must be addressed immediately. l Prohibit the CCC from being used to assist parties beyond farmers and ranchers. l Clarify that spending is only to address problems that are temporary in nature and ensure that funding is targeted to address such problems. l Tighten the discretion within section 5 and identify ways for improper application of the Charter Act to be challenged in court. Reform Farm Subsidies. Too often, agricultural policy becomes synonymous with farm subsidy policy. This is unfortunate, because making them synony- mous fails to recognize that agricultural policy covers a wide range of issues, including issues that are outside the proper scope of the USDA, such as environ- mental regulation. However, there is no question that farm subsidies are an important issue within agricultural policy that should be addressed by any incoming Adminis- tration. There are several principles that even subsidy supporters would likely agree upon, including the need to reduce market distortions. Subsidies should not influence planting decisions, discourage proper risk management and innovation, incentivize planting on environmentally sensitive land, or create barriers to entry for new farmers. Farm subsidies can lead to these market distortions and there- fore, it would hardly be controversial to ensure that any subsidy scheme should be designed to avoid such problems. The overall goal should be to eliminate subsidy dependence. Despite what might be conventional wisdom, many farmers receive few to no subsidies,31 with most subsidies going to only a handful of commodities. According to the Congres- sional Research Service (CRS), from 2014 to 2016, 94 percent of farm program

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 Sen. Welch, Peter

Plug Offshore Wells Act

119/s/4239

Baby Changing on Board Act

119/s/71

Advancing GETs Act of 2025

119/s/1327

Back to All Bills