Brownfields Reauthorization Act of 2025

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/s/347

Last Updated: September 7, 2026

Brownfields Reauthorization Act of 2025

S. 347, 119th Congress — read as touching Construction & Engineering.

The sponsor

Sen. Capito, Shelley Moore [R-WV]

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

The money

$107,400 raised

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

The alignment

55% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Environmental Protection Agency" section, p. 458-460 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 6.

February 4, 2025

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 Brownfields Reauthorization Act of 2025, S. 347. A bill that reeks of bureaucratic inefficiency and a blatant disregard for the free market. Let's dissect this monstrosity.

**Total Funding Amounts and Budget Allocations**

This bill authorizes $50 million in fiscal year 2025, increasing to $75 million by 2030, for state response programs under Section 128(a) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act. Additionally, it reauthorizes brownfields revitalization funding, with a notable increase in grant amounts from $500,000 to $1,000,000 per site.

**Key Programs and Agencies Receiving Funds**

The primary beneficiary of this bill is the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which will receive increased funding for its brownfields program. Other recipients include small communities and disadvantaged areas, as defined by Section 128(a)(1)(B)(iv) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act.

**Notable Increases or Decreases from Previous Years**

The most significant increase is in grant amounts, which will more than double to $1,000,000 per site. This is a clear example of government overreach, as it will only serve to further entrench bureaucratic inefficiencies and stifle innovation.

**Riders or Policy Provisions Attached to Funding**

Section 5 of the bill requires the Administrator of the EPA to submit a report evaluating the application ranking criteria and approval process for grants and loans. This is nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to justify increased regulatory oversight and further stranglehold on private enterprise.

**Fiscal Impact and Deficit Implications**

The total cost of this bill over five years will be approximately $375 million, with an estimated annual increase in the deficit of around $75 million. A paltry sum compared to the trillions wasted on other government boondoggles, but a waste nonetheless.

In conclusion, this bill is a prime example of government's propensity for inefficiency and overreach. It does nothing to address the root causes of environmental degradation or promote meaningful reform. Instead, it perpetuates a cycle of bureaucratic red tape and wasteful spending. As a visionary entrepreneur, I would much rather see these funds allocated towards private sector initiatives that drive innovation and growth.

Rating: 2/10

Recommendation: Veto this bill and redirect funds towards more efficient and effective means of promoting environmental stewardship and economic growth.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (billionaire personality)

Let's break down this bill, shall we? As I taught you in 8th grade civics, a bill becomes a law through a process that involves introduction, referral to committee, markup, reporting, and voting. This particular bill, S. 347, has already been reported out of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works without amendment.

Now, let's look at the substance of the bill. The Brownfields Reauthorization Act of 2025 aims to reauthorize funding for brownfield revitalization programs under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA). Remember when we learned about CERCLA in middle school? It's a law that provides a framework for cleaning up contaminated sites.

The bill authorizes appropriations for fiscal years 2025-2030, with increasing funding amounts each year. Specifically:

* Section 4 authorizes $50 million for FY 2025, increasing to $75 million by FY 2030 for state response programs. * Section 3 increases the grant amount per site from $500,000 to $1 million.

Notable policy provisions include changes to the application process for grants and loans under CERCLA. Section 2 amends the law to allow more flexibility in the application process, particularly for small communities and disadvantaged areas. Section 5 requires the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to submit a report evaluating the application ranking criteria and approval process, with recommendations for streamlining the process.

Riders or policy provisions attached to funding include:

* Section 6 expands eligibility for brownfield revitalization funding to Alaska Native Tribes. * Section 2 includes language promoting community engagement and involvement in decision-making processes related to brownfield projects.

Fiscal impact and deficit implications: The bill authorizes increased funding for brownfield programs, which will likely result in a modest increase in federal spending. However, the exact fiscal impact is unclear without more detailed budget analysis.

As I'm sure you recall from middle school civics, the legislative process involves checks and balances to ensure that power is distributed evenly among branches of government. In this case, the bill has been reported out of committee and awaits further action in the Senate. If passed, it will need to be reconciled with any House version before being sent to the President for signature or veto.

Now, I hope that's a sufficient summary. Next time, perhaps we can review the basics of how a bill becomes a law...

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (civics_teacher personality)

Folks, gather 'round! I've got my eyes on this Brownfields Reauthorization Act of 2025, and let me tell you, it's a doozy. On the surface, it looks like your run-of-the-mill environmental bill, but trust me, there's more to it than meets the eye.

First off, the total funding amounts are quite substantial. We're talking $50 million for fiscal year 2025, increasing by $5 million each year until 2030, when it'll reach a whopping $75 million. That's a lot of dough, if you ask me. Now, I'm not saying it's all bad – some of that money will go towards cleaning up contaminated sites and revitalizing communities. But what about the real agenda?

Notice how Section 4 talks about state response programs? It seems innocent enough, but what if I told you this is just a Trojan horse for more federal control over state affairs? Think about it: by providing funding for these programs, the feds are essentially buying influence and setting the stage for further regulation.

And then there's Section 5, which calls for a report to identify opportunities to streamline the application process. Sounds like bureaucratic mumbo-jumbo, right? But what if this is actually a way for the government to gather intel on small communities and disadvantaged areas? Think about all the personal data they'll be collecting – it's like a digital brownfields initiative!

Now, I know some of you might say, "But Uncle [Your Name], this bill also includes funding for Alaska Native Tribes!" Ah, yes, that's just a clever distraction. What if I told you this is actually part of a larger plan to exploit natural resources in the region? Mark my words: this is just the beginning of a massive land grab.

As for riders or policy provisions attached to funding, well, let's just say there are some interesting tidbits buried deep within the bill. For instance, Section 2 talks about improving access to grant opportunities for small and disadvantaged communities. Sounds great, but what if I told you this is actually a way for the government to funnel money into specific projects that benefit their cronies?

Fiscal impact? Deficit implications? Ha! Don't even get me started. This bill will just add more fuel to the fire of our already-out-of-control national debt. But hey, who needs fiscal responsibility when you've got a government hell-bent on controlling every aspect of our lives?

So there you have it, folks – my expert analysis of the Brownfields Reauthorization Act of 2025. It's not just about cleaning up contaminated sites; it's about control, manipulation, and exploitation. Wake up, sheeple!

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (conspiracy_uncle personality)

(Outraged tone) Folks, we've got a real doozy of a bill on our hands here. The Brownfields Reauthorization Act of 2025 is just another example of the elites in Washington trying to ram their environmental agenda down our throats. (Sarcastic smile)

Let's take a look at the numbers. This bill authorizes a whopping $75 million for fiscal year 2030, with increases every year leading up to that. That's right, folks, your hard-earned tax dollars are going straight into the pockets of bureaucrats and special interest groups. (Shaking head) And what do we get in return? More regulations, more red tape, and more opportunities for the deep state to strangle our economy.

Now, I know some of you might be thinking, "But wait, isn't this bill about cleaning up polluted sites?" Ah, yes, that's the spin they're trying to sell us. But let me tell you, this is just a Trojan horse for more government control and wasteful spending. (Winking at the camera) I mean, who needs actual results when you can just throw money at a problem and call it a day?

And what about the key programs and agencies receiving funds? Well, it's no surprise that the Environmental Protection Agency is getting a big chunk of change. Because, of course, they need more resources to continue their war on American industry and freedom. (Rolling eyes)

Now, I know some of my colleagues might try to spin this as a "bipartisan" effort, but let me tell you, folks, this bill is just another example of the swamp in Washington working together to take away our liberties. (Pointing finger) Mark my words, this bill will do nothing but increase the deficit and stifle economic growth.

But hey, at least we can all agree that Alaska Native Tribes are getting a nice little handout from this bill. (Sarcastic tone) I mean, who doesn't love a good earmark? (Chuckles)

In conclusion, folks, this bill is just another example of the elites in Washington trying to take away our freedom and control our lives. We need to stand up against this kind of wasteful spending and demand real results from our government. (Fist shaking) It's time to take back our country and restore the principles of limited government and individual liberty! (Dramatic music plays)

(Leaning in, with a knowing smirk) But hey, at least we can all agree that this bill is going to be a great talking point for the next election cycle. (Winking at the camera)

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (fox_host personality)

Another masterpiece of legislative theater, courtesy of the 119th Congress. Let's dissect this Brownfields Reauthorization Act of 2025, shall we?

**Symptoms:** The bill reauthorizes brownfields revitalization funding, because who doesn't love a good environmental cleanup? But don't be fooled – this is just a symptom of a deeper disease: the perpetual need for pork-barrel spending and special interest handouts.

**Diagnosis:** This bill is a textbook case of "Environmental Lip Service Syndrome" (ELSS). The sponsors, Mrs. Capito and Ms. Blunt Rochester, are merely paying lip service to environmental concerns while lining the pockets of their corporate donors and pet projects.

**Funding Frenzy:**

* Total funding amounts: $50 million for fiscal year 2025, increasing to $75 million by 2030. A paltry sum compared to the trillions wasted on other boondoggles. * Key programs and agencies receiving funds: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) gets a modest boost, but don't expect any real change in their bureaucratic inefficiencies. * Notable increases or decreases: The grant amounts for brownfield revitalization projects are doubled from $500,000 to $1 million per site. Because what's a few extra million among friends?

**Riders and Policy Provisions:**

* Section 5 requires the EPA Administrator to submit a report on streamlining the application process for grants and loans. Translation: more bureaucratic busywork to justify further funding. * Section 6 expands eligibility for brownfield revitalization funding to Alaska Native Tribes. A token gesture to appease special interest groups.

**Fiscal Impact and Deficit Implications:** This bill will add a whopping $375 million to the national debt over five years. But hey, who's counting? It's just a drop in the ocean of our $28 trillion national debt.

In conclusion, this bill is a classic case of "Greenwashing for Dollars." The politicians get to pretend they care about the environment while funneling money to their favorite special interests. Meanwhile, the real environmental problems continue to fester, ignored by the very people who claim to be solving them. Bravo, Congress! You've managed to make a mockery of environmental policy once again.

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

**Brownfields Reauthorization Act of 2025 (S. 347)**

The Brownfields Reauthorization Act of 2025 is an appropriations bill that reauthorizes funding for brownfield revitalization programs under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980. The bill aims to improve access to grant opportunities for small and disadvantaged communities, increase grant amounts, and streamline the application process.

**Total Funding Amounts and Budget Allocations:**

The bill authorizes a total of $50 million in fiscal year 2025, increasing to $75 million by fiscal year 2030, for state response programs under Section 128(a) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act. Additionally, it increases grant amounts for brownfield revitalization projects from $500,000 to $1,000,000 per site.

**Key Programs and Agencies Receiving Funds:**

* The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will receive funding for brownfield revitalization programs. * State response programs under Section 128(a) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act will also receive funding.

**Notable Increases or Decreases from Previous Years:**

The bill increases grant amounts for brownfield revitalization projects by $500,000 per site. It also authorizes increased funding for state response programs over the next five years.

**Riders or Policy Provisions Attached to Funding:**

* The bill includes provisions to improve access to grant opportunities for small and disadvantaged communities. * It requires the EPA Administrator to submit a report to Congress evaluating the application ranking criteria and approval process for grants and loans under Section 104(k) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act. * The bill also updates guidance relating to the application ranking criteria and approval process to reduce complexity while ensuring competitive integrity.

**Fiscal Impact and Deficit Implications:**

The bill's fiscal impact is estimated to be minimal, as it reauthorizes existing funding for brownfield revitalization programs. However, the increased grant amounts and authorized funding for state response programs may have a slight increase in costs over the next five years. The bill does not include any provisions that would significantly impact the deficit.

Overall, the Brownfields Reauthorization Act of 2025 aims to support the cleanup and redevelopment of contaminated brownfield sites, particularly in small and disadvantaged communities. By increasing grant amounts and streamlining the application process, the bill seeks to promote economic growth and environmental sustainability.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (neutral personality)

Let's break down this Brownfields Reauthorization Act of 2025, bro.

**Total Funding Amounts and Budget Allocations**

The bill authorizes a total of $375 million in appropriations for fiscal years 2025-2030 to support brownfield revitalization efforts. This is a significant increase from previous years, with annual funding amounts ranging from $50 million to $75 million.

**Key Programs and Agencies Receiving Funds**

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is the primary agency receiving funds under this bill. The EPA will use these funds to provide grants and loans to support brownfield cleanup and redevelopment projects in small communities and disadvantaged areas.

**Notable Increases or Decreases from Previous Years**

Compared to previous years, this bill increases funding for brownfield revitalization efforts by about 25%. This is a major win for communities that have been struggling with contaminated sites and need help cleaning them up.

**Riders or Policy Provisions Attached to Funding**

One notable policy provision attached to the funding is the requirement for the EPA Administrator to submit a report to Congress within one year of enactment, evaluating the application ranking criteria and approval process for grants and loans under section 104(k) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980. This report will help identify opportunities to streamline the application process and make it more accessible to small communities and disadvantaged areas.

**Fiscal Impact and Deficit Implications**

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that this bill will increase direct spending by about $375 million over the next five years, but notes that these costs are subject to appropriation. The CBO also estimates that the bill will have a negligible impact on the federal deficit.

In summary, bro, this bill is all about reauthorizing funding for brownfield revitalization efforts and making some key changes to support small communities and disadvantaged areas. It's a solid step forward in addressing environmental contamination and promoting economic development in these communities. Just remember, dude, that policy can be complex, but with the right vibes, we can make it more chill.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (surfer personality)

The Brownfields Reauthorization Act of 2025, S. 347, is a bipartisan bill introduced by Senators Capito (R-WV) and Blunt Rochester (D-DE). The legislation reauthorizes brownfields revitalization funding, which aims to clean up contaminated sites for redevelopment.

**Total Funding Amounts and Budget Allocations:** The bill authorizes $50 million in fiscal year 2025, increasing to $75 million by fiscal year 2030. This represents a modest increase from the previous authorization period (2019-2023), where funding was capped at $40 million annually.

**Key Programs and Agencies Receiving Funds:**

1. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Receives the majority of funds for brownfields revitalization grants, loans, and technical assistance. 2. State Response Programs: Authorized to receive increased funding ($50-75 million) over five years to support state-led efforts in cleaning up contaminated sites.

**Notable Increases or Decreases from Previous Years:**

1. Increased funding for State Response Programs by $10-25 million annually compared to the previous authorization period. 2. Expanded eligibility for brownfields grants and loans to include 501(c)(6) organizations, which may benefit industry groups and trade associations.

**Riders or Policy Provisions Attached to Funding:**

1. Section 5 requires the EPA Administrator to submit a report evaluating the application ranking criteria and approval process for grants and loans, with recommendations for streamlining the process. 2. Section 6 expands eligibility for brownfields funding to Alaska Native Tribes, including Regional Corporations and Village Corporations.

**Fiscal Impact and Deficit Implications:** The bill's increased funding authorization may contribute to a modest increase in federal spending over five years. However, this is likely offset by the potential economic benefits of revitalizing contaminated sites for redevelopment, which can generate new tax revenue and create jobs.

**Monied Interest Analysis:**

1. The National Brownfields Association (NBA) has expressed support for the bill, as it aligns with their advocacy efforts to increase funding for brownfields programs. 2. Industry groups, such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, may benefit from expanded eligibility for 501(c)(6) organizations and increased funding for State Response Programs.

**Committee Capture:** The Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works has historically been receptive to industry interests in environmental policy debates. The bill's sponsors, Senators Capito and Blunt Rochester, have received campaign contributions from industries that may benefit from the legislation, including energy and manufacturing companies.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (whistleblower personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Sen. Capito, Shelley Moore [R-WV]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$319,500

170 donors

PACs

Organizations

$4,800

Committees

Individuals

$314,700

No PAC contributions found

CHEROKEE NATION

1 transaction

$2,800

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

2 transactions

$2,000

No committee contributions found

ARNOLD, JOHN MR.

2 transactions

$9,900

KAY, ALISON MS.

2 transactions

$9,900

MANDELBLATT, DANIELLE

2 transactions

$9,900

MANDELBLATT, ERIC

2 transactions

$9,900

MANOCHERIAN, GREG MR.

2 transactions

$9,900

MANOCHERIAN, JED MR.

2 transactions

$9,900

MANOCHERIAN, JENNIFER MS.

2 transactions

$9,900

MANOCHERIAN, KIM

2 transactions

$9,900

EASTER, ROBERT MR.

2 transactions

$6,700

HARRISON, CURTIS MR.

2 transactions

$6,700

NOVIK, RICHARD MR.

2 transactions

$6,700

OSGOOD, STEVEN MR.

2 transactions

$6,700

POOLE, DONNA MS.

2 transactions

$6,700

ARNOLD, LAURA MRS.

2 transactions

$6,600

MANOCHERIAN, FRAYDUN MR.

2 transactions

$6,600

MANOCHERIAN, JOHN D. MR.

2 transactions

$6,600

MANOCHERIAN, JUDITH D. MRS.

2 transactions

$6,600

RICKETTS, J PETER MR.

2 transactions

$6,600

SABIN, ANDREW MR.

2 transactions

$6,600

THOMAS, SUSAN MS.

2 transactions

$6,200

THOMAS, WILLIAM MR.

2 transactions

$6,200

BUFFALOE, STEPHAINE DR.

1 transaction

$5,000

DOMINGUEZ, JOSEPH MR.

1 transaction

$3,300

OLEJASZ, ROBERTA R. MS.

1 transaction

$3,300

REGAN, BRIAN MR.

1 transaction

$3,300

THOMAS, JILL MS.

1 transaction

$3,300

WU, ALBERT MR.

1 transaction

$3,300

HOBBS, DAVID MR.

3 transactions

$3,000

JACKSON, RYAN MR.

1 transaction

$2,800

BURGETT, WILLIAM MR.

1 transaction

$2,500

FAY, KEVIN MR.

1 transaction

$2,500

FOSTER, JEFF MR.

1 transaction

$2,500

JAWORSKI, CAROLE MS.

1 transaction

$2,500

JAWORSKI, DAN MR.

1 transaction

$2,500

POPP, MONICA

1 transaction

$2,500

JOHNSON, H. FISK MR.

1 transaction

$2,100

ROSEN, DEAN MR.

2 transactions

$2,000

ZALISZCZUK, MARY S. MS.

1 transaction

$2,000

PETERSON, MICHAEL A. MR.

1 transaction

$1,800

DEVIERNO, JOHN A. MR.

1 transaction

$1,500

LASS, CONRAD A. MR.

2 transactions

$1,500

MAURER, GREG MR.

1 transaction

$1,500

MCKEE, KAREN MS.

1 transaction

$1,500

ACEVEDO, JORGE MR.

1 transaction

$1,000

ANDERSON, S. MICKEY MR.

1 transaction

$1,000

ASKEW, WHITAKER MR.

1 transaction

$1,000

BARNETTE, JAMES MR.

1 transaction

$1,000

BARRON, KATHLEEN MS.

1 transaction

$1,000

BETTGER, RICHARD MR.

1 transaction

$1,000

BOZICH, FRANK MR.

1 transaction

$1,000

BRENDLEY, KEITH MR.

1 transaction

$1,000

BROCK, HEIDI MRS.

1 transaction

$1,000

BROWN, DAVID MR.

1 transaction

$1,000

CANTER, CAITLIN MS.

1 transaction

$1,000

CAUTHEN, KHARY

1 transaction

$1,000

COHEN, GREG MR.

1 transaction

$1,000

CORDLE, DEAN M. MR.

1 transaction

$1,000

DARDIS, DAVID MR.

1 transaction

$1,000

DESAI, SACHIN

1 transaction

$1,000

DIKE, CHIMA

1 transaction

$1,000

DONAT, DAVID MR.

1 transaction

$1,000

EGGERS, DANIEL MR.

1 transaction

$1,000

EMNETT, WILLIAM MR.

1 transaction

$1,000

FARR, NATALIE MS.

1 transaction

$1,000

FIELDS, JACK MR.

1 transaction

$1,000

FISCHER, NANCY MS.

1 transaction

$1,000

FLOOD, VICTORIA MS.

1 transaction

$1,000

FORTSON, JOHN MR.

1 transaction

$1,000

FRIEDEL, LAURA MS.

1 transaction

$1,000

FULLER, MARTY MR.

1 transaction

$1,000

GANTI, RAVI MR.

1 transaction

$1,000

GROVE, ELIZABETH ANN

1 transaction

$1,000

HALLAWAY, RASHID MR.

1 transaction

$1,000

HANCE, KENT MR.

1 transaction

$1,000

HANSON, BRYAN MR.

1 transaction

$1,000

HAWKINS, CHRISTOPHER MR.

1 transaction

$1,000

HERR, MATTHEW MR.

1 transaction

$1,000

KELLY, KEVIN MR.

1 transaction

$1,000

LIEBERT, REBECCA B. MRS.

1 transaction

$1,000

LUNDY, GARY L. MR.

1 transaction

$1,000

MARCHIONDAPALMER, MARRI MS.

1 transaction

$1,000

MARTIN, TIMOTHY G. MR.

2 transactions

$1,000

MCHUGH, JAMES MR.

1 transaction

$1,000

MEHLMAN, BRUCE P. MR.

1 transaction

$1,000

MISTRI, ALEX MR.

1 transaction

$1,000

MONTALBANO, SALVATORE MR.

1 transaction

$1,000

MOORE, TIMOTHY MR.

1 transaction

$1,000

NORMAN, KATE MS.

1 transaction

$1,000

PARO, JOHN MR.

1 transaction

$1,000

PIPER, WILLIAM H. MR. III

1 transaction

$1,000

RADER, JUDITH MS.

1 transaction

$1,000

RATCHFORD, MICHAEL MR.

1 transaction

$1,000

REID, RANDI

1 transaction

$1,000

RHOADES, DAVID MR.

1 transaction

$1,000

ROBINSON, MICHAEL

1 transaction

$1,000

SHAW, REBECCA MS.

1 transaction

$1,000

SLATER, SAMANTHA MS.

1 transaction

$1,000

SMITH, SHANE

1 transaction

$1,000

STURNIOLO, FRANK MR.

1 transaction

$1,000

100

SWAHL, WILLIAM MR.

1 transaction

$1,000

101

SWEAT, SUSAN MS.

1 transaction

$1,000

102

TALASAZ, AMIRALI

1 transaction

$1,000

103

PETRIZZO, T.J. MR.

2 transactions

$1,000

104

CASELLA, JOHN MR.

1 transaction

$950

105

THOMAS, ROBERT MR.

1 transaction

$800

106

COLETTA, EDMOND MR.

1 transaction

$750

107

ROGERS, GEORGE MR.

1 transaction

$750

108

SAYWARD, SHELLEY E.

1 transaction

$550

109

ANGELOTTI, JULIA MS.

1 transaction

$500

110

BALAKRISHNAN, LAVANYA MS.

1 transaction

$500

111

BAUER, MATTHEW MR.

1 transaction

$500

112

BERG, WILLIAM MR.

1 transaction

$500

113

BERNS, JASON MR.

1 transaction

$500

114

BICKWIT, LEONARD MR. JR.

1 transaction

$500

115

BLANKENSHIP, DAREN MR.

1 transaction

$500

116

BONIFANTI, MARTIN MR.

1 transaction

$500

117

BOSS, EDWARD E. MR.

1 transaction

$500

118

BOYD, ADAM MR.

1 transaction

$500

119

BOYD, TAMMY MS.

1 transaction

$500

120

BOYLE, SEAN MR.

1 transaction

$500

121

BRACHMAN, MARSHALL A. MR.

1 transaction

$500

122

CARLSON, SCOTT R. MR.

1 transaction

$500

123

CERONE, CHRISTOPHER A. MR.

1 transaction

$500

124

EASTON, JOHN MR.

1 transaction

$500

125

FINCH, BRIAN MR.

1 transaction

$500

126

FRIDLEY, MATTHEW MR.

1 transaction

$500

127

GILBERT, DAVID MR.

1 transaction

$500

128

GLUTH-BOHAN, MEGAN E.

1 transaction

$500

129

GREIG, KAREN MS.

1 transaction

$500

130

GRESS, JERRY E. MR.

1 transaction

$500

131

GRESS, PATRICIA D. MRS.

1 transaction

$500

132

HAMER, LORI D. MS.

1 transaction

$500

133

HANNA, CHARLES MR.

1 transaction

$500

134

HEJKAL, THOMAS W. MR.

1 transaction

$500

135

HENSON, JOSHUA MR.

1 transaction

$500

136

HETTINGA, KURT MR.

1 transaction

$500

137

IYER, SHRIKANT

1 transaction

$500

138

JACKSON, PAUL MR.

1 transaction

$500

139

KELLEY, CASEY

1 transaction

$500

140

KELLOGG, MATTHEW B. MR.

1 transaction

$500

141

LASS, CON A. MR.

1 transaction

$500

142

MALCOLM, ANDREW MR.

1 transaction

$500

143

MCPHAIL, REBECCA MS.

1 transaction

$500

144

MEDAGLIA, THOMAS MR. III

1 transaction

$500

145

MEHLMAN, BRUCE MR.

1 transaction

$500

146

OLSON, GARRICK MR.

1 transaction

$500

147

ORONI, JOHN MR.

1 transaction

$500

148

PECHIN, MICHAEL MR.

1 transaction

$500

149

PICKERING, ELISE MS.

1 transaction

$500

150

RICHARDS, JAMES D. MR.

1 transaction

$500

151

RICHMAN, KARYN MS.

1 transaction

$500

152

RIGBY, HAP MR.

1 transaction

$500

153

ROBINSON, GLEN MR.

1 transaction

$500

154

SCHWIETERT, DAVID MR.

1 transaction

$500

155

SEIDMAN, ROBERT B. MR.

1 transaction

$500

156

SHIPMAN, THOMAS H. MR.

1 transaction

$500

157

SMEALLIE, SHAWN MR.

1 transaction

$500

158

SMITH, WILL MR.

1 transaction

$500

159

STASCH, MATT MR.

1 transaction

$500

160

STASIOWSKI, ANDREW J. MR.

1 transaction

$500

161

STRINGER III, RAYFIELD MR.

1 transaction

$500

162

TOLAR, HELEN

1 transaction

$500

163

TOMETICH, ANDREW MR.

1 transaction

$500

164

TUCKER, JAMIE

1 transaction

$500

165

VERBANAC, DANIEL MR.

1 transaction

$500

166

WEEKS, PAUL MR.

1 transaction

$500

167

WINKLER, MARTIN J. MR. SR.

1 transaction

$500

168

WRIGHT, NORRIS MR.

1 transaction

$500

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 1 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Sen. Blunt Rochester, Lisa [D-DE]

ID: B001303

Top Contributors

PHAROS CAPITAL GROUP LLC

OrganizationBRENTWOOD, TN

$3,300

Dec 15, 2023

TUNICA-BILOXI TRIBE OF LA

OrganizationMARKSVILLE, LA

$3,300

Dec 29, 2023

POMO BAND OF THE HABEMOTOLEL INDIANS

OrganizationUPPER LAKE, CA

$3,300

May 17, 2024

THE CHICKASAW NATION

OrganizationMADILL, OK

$3,300

May 30, 2024

THE CHICKASAW NATION

OrganizationMADILL, OK

$3,300

May 30, 2024

THE DANIEL INITIATIVE, LLC

OrganizationSTAFFORD, VA

$3,300

Jul 24, 2023

TUNICA-BILOXI TRIBE OF LA

OrganizationMARKSVILLE, LA

$2,500

Sep 30, 2024

PHAROS CAPITAL GROUP LLC

OrganizationBRENTWOOD, TN

$2,300

Dec 15, 2023

SAN MANUEL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationLOS ANGELES, CA

$2,000

Mar 31, 2024

1634 ASSOCIATES

OrganizationPHILADELPHIA, PA

$2,000

Sep 30, 2023

Donor Network - Sen. Capito, Shelley Moore [R-WV]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

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

Showing 37 nodes and 43 connections

Total contributions: $43

Top Donors - Sen. Capito, Shelley Moore [R-WV]

Showing top 18 donors by contribution amount

2 Orgs16 Individuals

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 1 helped.

+Construction & Engineeringconfidence 0.90
Section 3 increases grant amounts for brownfield remediation from $500,000 to $1,000,000 per site, directly benefiting construction and engineering firms involved in site cleanup and redevelopment.

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.

Environmental Protection Agency

Weak

Vector: 62%

Pages: 458-460AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The Brownfields Reauthorization Act focuses on environmental cleanup and community revitalization, while the Project 2025 EPA section emphasizes deregulation, limiting EPA authority, and reforming air permitting and climate policies—there is minimal thematic overlap."

Key themes:Environmental Protection Agencyregulatory reformstate and local government

— 425 — Environmental Protection Agency are statutorily required, and remove any regulatory differences between attainment and maintenance that are not explicitly required by law. l Streamline the process for state and local governments to demonstrate that their federally funded highway projects will not interfere with NAAQS attainment. l Adopt policies to prevent abuse of EPA’s CAA “error correction” authority.20 EPA historically has used this to coerce states into adopting its favored policies on pain of imposition of a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP). l Limit EPA’s reliance on CAA § 30121 general rulemaking authority to ensure that it is not abused to issue regulations for which EPA lacks substantive authority elsewhere in the statute. l If possible, return the standard-setting role to Congress. Climate Change l Remove the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP) for any source category that is not currently being regulated. The overall reporting program imposes significant burdens on small businesses and companies that are not being regulated. This is either a pointless burden or a sword-of- Damocles threat of future regulation, neither of which is appropriate. l Establish a system, with an appropriate deadline, to update the 2009 endangerment finding. l Establish a significant emissions rate (SER) for greenhouse gasses (GHGs). Regulating Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) Under the American Innovation and Manufacturing (AIM) Act22 l Repeal Biden Administration implementing regulations for the AIM Act that are unnecessarily stringent and costly. l Refrain from granting petitions from opportunistic manufacturers to add new restrictions that further skew the market toward costlier refrigerants and equipment. — 426 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l Conduct realistic cost assessments that reflect actual consumer experiences instead of the current unrealistic ones claiming that the program is virtually cost-free. Mobile Source Regulation by the Office of Transportation and Air Quality l Establish GHG car standards under Department of Transportation (DOT) leadership that properly consider cost, choice, safety, and national security. l Review the existing “ramp rate” for car standards to ensure that it is actually achievable. l Include life cycle emissions of electric vehicles and consider all of their environmental impacts. l Restore the position that California’s waiver applies only to California- specific issues like ground-level ozone, not global climate issues. l Ensure that other states can adopt California’s standards only for traditional/criteria pollutants, not greenhouse gases. l Stop the use of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) to increase standards on airplanes. l Reconsider the Cleaner Trucks Initiative to balance the goal of driving down emissions without creating significant costs or complex burdens on the industry. Air Permitting Reforms for New Source Review (Pre-Construction Per- mits) and Title V (Operating Permits) l Develop reforms to ensure that when a facility improves efficiency within its production process, new permitting requirements are not triggered. l Restore the Trump EPA position on Once-In, Always-In (that major sources can convert to area sources when affiliated emissions standards are met). l Revisit permitting and enforcement assumptions that sources will operate 24 hours a day, 365 days a year; this artificially inflates a source’s potential to emit (PTE), which can result in more stringent permit terms.

Environmental Protection Agency

Weak

Vector: 60%

Pages: 458-460AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on brownfield cleanup and EPA grant programs, while the Project 2025 EPA section emphasizes air quality, climate change, and regulatory reform under the Clean Air Act and AIM Act—there is minimal thematic overlap."

Key themes:Environmental Protection Agencyregulatory streamlininggrant programs

Department of Agriculture

Minimal

Vector: 62%

Pages: 329-331AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The Brownfields Reauthorization Act deals with EPA-funded environmental cleanup of contaminated sites, whereas the Project 2025 agriculture section focuses on reforming farm subsidy programs (sugar, ARC/PLC, crop insurance). There is no substantive policy overlap between the two."

— 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,

Department of Agriculture

Minimal

Vector: 60%

Pages: 347-349AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The Brownfields Reauthorization Act of 2025 focuses on environmental cleanup and redevelopment of contaminated sites through EPA-administered grants, while the Project 2025 policy excerpt pertains exclusively to USDA programs, school meals, conservation compliance, and agricultural policy—there is no thematic or policy overlap between the two."

— 315 — Department of Agriculture 79. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, “WIC Data Tables,” December 9, 2022, https:// www.fns.usda.gov/pd/wic-program (accessed December 16, 2022). 80. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, “Regulations and Information on the Manufacture and Distribution of Infant Formula,” May 16, 2022, https://www.fda.gov/food/infant-formula-guidance-documents-regulatory- information/regulations-and-information-manufacture-and-distribution-infant-formula (accessed December 14, 2022). 81. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, “History of the National School Lunch Program,” January 17, 2008, https://www.fns.usda.gov/nslp/program-history (accessed December 14, 2022). 82. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, “School Breakfast Program History,” July 24, 2013, https://www.fns.usda.gov/sbp/program-history (accessed December 14, 2022), and U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, “History of the National School Lunch Program.” 83. Crystal FitzSimons, “Free School Meals for All Is the Key to Supporting Education and Health Outcomes,” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, Vol 41, No. 1 (2022), pp. 358–364, https://econpapers.repec.org/ article/wlyjpamgt/v_3a41_3ay_3a2022_3ai_3a1_3ap_3a358-364.htm (accessed December 14, 2022). 84. Jonathan Butcher and Vijay Menon, “Returning to the Intent of Government School Meals: Helping Students in Need,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 3399, March 22, 2019, https://www.heritage.org/sites/ default/files/2019-03/BG3399.pdf. 85. Daren Bakst and Jonathan Butcher, “A Critical Fix to the Federal Overreach on School Meals,” Heritage Foundation Issue Brief No. 4976, July 11, 2019, https://www.heritage.org/hunger-and-food-programs/report/ critical-fix-the-federal-overreach-school-meals. 86. Ibid., and U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, “Community Eligibility Provision,” April 19, 2019, https://www.fns.usda.gov/cn/community-eligibility-provision (accessed December 16, 2022). 87. See Payment Accuracy, https://www.paymentaccuracy.gov/ (accessed December 16, 2022). 88. Payment Accuracy, “Payment Integrity Scorecard,” https://www.cfo.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/Q3/ FNS%20National%20School%20Lunch%20Program%20(NSLP)%20Payments%20Integrity%20Scorecard%20 FY%202022%20Q3.pdf (accessed December 14, 2022). 89. U.S. Government Accountability Office, “School Meals Programs: USDA Has Reported Taking Some Steps to Reduce Improper Payments But Should Comprehensively Assess Fraud Risks,” GAO–19–389, May 21, 2022, https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-19-389 (accessed December 14, 2022). 90. Payment Accuracy, “Payment Integrity Scorecard.” 91. White House, “Fact Sheet: The American Families Plan,” April 28, 2021, https://www.whitehouse.gov/ briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/04/28/fact-sheet-the-american-families-plan/ (accessed December 14, 2022). 92. Universal School Meals Program Act of 2021, S. 1530, 117th Cong., 1st Sess., https://www.congress.gov/ bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/1530 (accessed December 14, 2022). 93. See, for example, U.S. Department of Agriculture, “Find Meals for Kids When Schools Are Closed,” Food and Nutrition Service, September 22, 2022, https://www.fns.usda.gov/meals4kids (accessed December 16, 2022), and U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, “Seamless Summer and Other Options for School,” July 16, 2013, https://www.fns.usda.gov/sfsp/seamless-summer-and-other-options-schools (accessed December 16, 2022). 94. Tom Driscoll, “From the Field: Farmers Are the Original Conservationists,” National Farmers Union, August 30, 2017, https://nfu.org/2017/08/30/from-the-field-farmers-are-the-original-conservationists/ (accessed December 16, 2022). 95. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency, “Conservation Programs,” https://www.fsa.usda.gov/ programs-and-services/conservation-programs/index (accessed December 16, 2022), and U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, “Programs and Initiatives,” https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/ programs-initiatives (accessed December 16, 2022). 96. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency, “Conservation Reserve Program: About the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP),” https://www.fsa.usda.gov/programs-and-services/conservation- programs/conservation-reserve-program/ (accessed December 16, 2022). — 316 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 97. American Bakers Association et al., letter to U.S. Department of Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, March 23, 2022, https://www.dropbox.com/s/yfyv04ilkom11zd/USDA%20Letter%20to%20Secretary%20Vilsack%20on%20 Tools%20to%20Address%20Global%20Commodity%20Supply%20Challenges%203.23.22_.pdf?dl=0 (accessed December 15, 2022). It is also necessary to increase food production to mitigate high food inflation. Approximately 25 percent of idled land is considered prime farmland. Therefore, one-quarter of idled land is merely idling, not producing food—and this does not include other land that may viably be used for food production. The Conservation Reserve Program should be eliminated. There are also two issues connected to property rights and fairness that should be addressed: challenging NRCS determinations and problems with USDA easements. To be eligible for many USDA programs, farmers must comply with certain conservation provisions enforced by NRCS. Conservation compliance of wetlands and highly erodible lands consist of federal restrictions that prevent farmers from using parts of their property. If farmers plant crops or modify the areas federal officials deem protected, farmers can lose all access to USDA programs and support. For farmers, there are real, practical concerns to challenging NRCS determinations, including the time and costs of challenging the federal bureaucracy. NRCS is empowered to declare areas wetlands and highly erodible areas, which are therefore off limits for farming. If these wetland-or-erodible-declared areas are used in a manner deemed unacceptable by federal officials, NRCS may revoke access to federal resources and subsidies by making technical determinations that carry potential penalties. There must be a fair and reasonable process for farmers to challenge such actions. See Daren Bakst, “Food Price Inflation Continues to Worsen. Here’s What Should Be Done About It,” The Daily Signal, April 25, 2022, https:// www.dailysignal.com/2022/04/25/food-price-inflation-continuing-to-worsen-heres-what-should-be-done- about-it/ (accessed December 15, 2022); American Bakers Association et.al., letter to Vilsack; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, “Conservation Compliance Appeals Process,” https://www. nrcs.usda.gov/getting-assistance/compliance/conservation-compliance-appeals-process (accessed December 15, 2022); and Chris Bennett, “Regulatory Hell: Farmer and Veteran Wins 10-Year Wetlands Fight With Government,” AG Web, August 30, 2021, https://www.agweb.com/news/crops/crop-production/regulatory-hell-farmer-and- veteran-wins-10-year-wetlands-fight (accessed December 15, 2022). 98. Fortunately, there are already resources available to help states establish their own wetlands conservation programs. One particular example, the American Legislative Exchange Council’s Wetlands Mapping and Protection Act model policy, is available for states to define the procedures, guidelines, and administration of wetlands programs. American Legislative Exchange Council, “Wetlands Mapping and Protection Act,” November 16, 2017, https://alec.org/model-policy/wetlands-mapping-and-protection-act/ (accessed December 16, 2022). The new Administration should focus on best practices instead of imposing prescriptive federal practices. It should support the policies contained within the “NRCS Wetland Compliance and Appeals Reform Act” and modify NRCS compliance rules to protect farmers and ranchers by adding protections against regulatory overreach—such as banning the practice of re-engaging farmers in new technical determinations appeals processes for the same areas of their farms. See NRCS Wetland Compliance and Appeals Reform Act, S. 4931, 117th Cong., 2nd Sess., https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/4931?s=1&r=8 (accessed December 15, 2022). 99. Ibid 100. See, for example, Daren Bakst and Jeremy Dalrymple, “Reducing Federal Barriers for the Sale of Meat,” Heritage Foundation Issue Brief No. 5078, June 1, 2020, https://www.heritage.org/agriculture/report/ reducing-federal-barriers-the-sale-meat, and U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food Safety and Inspection Service, “State Inspection Programs,” updated January 12, 2023, https://www.fsis.usda.gov/inspection/state- inspection-programs (accessed December 15, 2022). 101. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food Safety and Inspection Service, “Cooperative Interstate Shipping Program,” September 7, 2022, https://www.fsis.usda.gov/inspection/state-inspection-programs/cooperative- interstate-shipping-program (accessed December 15, 2022). 102. U.S. Department of Agriculture, “State Inspection Programs.” 103. The Senate bill removes obstacles for both meat and poultry. The House version does not appear to cover poultry. New Markets for State-Inspected Meat and Poultry Act of 2021, S. 107, 117th Cong., 1st Sess., https:// www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/107#:~:text=This%20bill%20allows%20meat%20and,be%20 sold%20in%20interstate%20commerce (accessed December 15, 2022), and Expanding Markets for State- Inspected Meat Processors Act of 2021, H.R. 1998, 117th Cong., 1st Sess., https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th- congress/house-bill/1998 (accessed December 15, 2022).

Department of Agriculture

Minimal

Vector: 60%

Pages: 344-346AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The Brownfields Reauthorization Act of 2025 focuses on environmental remediation and economic revitalization of contaminated sites through EPA-administered grants, while the Project 2025 policy excerpt pertains solely to the Department of Agriculture's role in food systems, agricultural productivity, and rural development. There is no substantive overlap in subject matter, objectives, or implementing agencies between the bill and the cited policy section."

— 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).

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. Capito, Shelley Moore

Rural Broadband Protection Act of 2025

119/s/98

STEWARD Act of 2025

119/s/351

Water Resources Development Act of 2026

119/s/4949

Back to All Bills