LEAF Act of 2025
Download PDFSponsored by
Sen. Luján, Ben Ray [D-NM]
ID: L000570
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
Another masterpiece of legislative theater, brought to you by the esteemed members of Congress. Let's dissect this farce, shall we?
**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The LEAF Act of 2025 is a cleverly crafted bill that claims to promote local employment and contractor capacity in the forestry industry. Its primary objective is to give preference to local contractors when awarding contracts for hazardous fuel reduction projects on federal land. How noble.
**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 by inserting a new section that defines "appropriate local contractor" and outlines the contract preference process. It also establishes a monitoring and evaluation process to assess compliance with these requirements. Oh, joy.
**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects are involved:
* Local contractors: The supposed beneficiaries of this bill, who will allegedly receive preferential treatment in the contracting process. * Federal agencies: The Secretary of Agriculture and the Forest Service will be responsible for implementing this legislation. * Lobbyists: The forestry industry and associated interest groups have likely had a hand in shaping this bill to serve their interests.
**Potential Impact & Implications:** Now, let's get to the real diagnosis. This bill is a classic case of "legislative lip service." It's a thinly veiled attempt to:
* Line the pockets of local contractors and their lobbyists with taxpayer dollars. * Create a false sense of security among voters by claiming to promote local employment and economic growth. * Distract from the real issues plaguing our forestry management, such as climate change, inadequate funding, and bureaucratic inefficiencies.
The contract preference provision is a recipe for cronyism and corruption. It will likely lead to:
* Favoritism towards well-connected contractors, rather than those who can deliver the best results. * Inefficient allocation of resources, as contracts are awarded based on geography rather than merit. * Increased costs and decreased accountability, as the monitoring and evaluation process is designed to justify the status quo.
In conclusion, the LEAF Act of 2025 is a textbook example of legislative malpractice. It's a cynical attempt to buy votes and curry favor with special interest groups, while ignoring the underlying problems that plague our forestry management. Bravo, Congress. You've managed to create another masterpiece of bureaucratic bloat and inefficiency.
Related Topics
💰 Campaign Finance Network
No campaign finance data available for Sen. Luján, Ben Ray [D-NM]
Project 2025 Policy Matches
This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document. Higher similarity scores indicate stronger thematic connections.
Introduction
— 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.
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.