A bill to amend the Act of June 22, 1948.

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/s/638

Last Updated: July 21, 2026

A bill to amend the Act of June 22, 1948.

S. 638, 119th Congress — read as touching Agribusiness.

The sponsor

Sen. Smith, Tina [D-MN]

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

The money

$74,500 raised

30 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

Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 208.

October 26, 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 S. 638 bill, a minor tweak to the Thye-Blatnik Act of 1948. A trivial matter, really, but one that warrants attention from those of us who understand the intricacies of power and wealth.

**Main Purpose & Objectives** This bill aims to modify the appraisal process for certain lands under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Agriculture. The primary objective is to allow for a more nuanced approach to determining fair appraised values, taking into account historical values. A seemingly innocuous goal, but one that could have far-reaching implications for landowners and investors like myself.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The bill proposes to amend Section 5 of the Thye-Blatnik Act by inserting language that enables the Secretary of Agriculture to consider "historical fair appraised values" when determining the value of lands. This change could potentially lead to more accurate valuations, but it also introduces a level of subjectivity that may benefit some stakeholders at the expense of others.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders** The primary affected parties will be landowners, investors, and companies with interests in agricultural or forestry industries. However, as a visionary entrepreneur, I recognize that this bill's impact extends beyond these immediate stakeholders. The ripples of this legislation could influence the broader economy, particularly if it sets a precedent for more flexible valuation methods.

**Potential Impact & Implications** From my perspective, this bill presents both opportunities and threats. On one hand, a more nuanced appraisal process could lead to increased efficiency in land transactions, potentially benefiting companies like mine that operate at scale. However, the introduction of subjectivity in valuations may also create uncertainty and disputes, which could hinder investment and growth.

In conclusion, S. 638 is a bill that warrants attention from those who understand the intricacies of power and wealth. While its immediate impact may seem limited, it has the potential to set precedents and influence the broader economic landscape. As someone who has built an empire through strategic investments and calculated risk-taking, I will be monitoring this bill's progress closely.

Projected impact on my portfolio: $500 million - $1 billion in potential gains or losses, depending on how the legislation is implemented and interpreted.

Recommendation to my think tank: Conduct further analysis on the implications of this bill for land valuation methodologies and their potential impact on the agricultural and forestry industries.

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 class, a bill is a proposed law that must go through a series of steps before it can become an actual law. This one, S 638, aims to amend the Act of June 22, 1948, also known as the Thye-Blatnik Act.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The main purpose of this bill is to modify Section 5 of the Thye-Blatnik Act, which deals with appraisals. Remember when we learned about how laws are made and how they can be amended? Yeah, that's what's happening here. The objective is to change the way fair appraised values are determined for certain properties.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill proposes to strike out a specific phrase in Section 5 of the Thye-Blatnik Act and replace it with new language. This change would allow the Secretary of Agriculture to consider historical fair appraised values when determining the highest fair appraised value of properties. As we covered in class, committees play a crucial role in shaping bills before they're voted on. In this case, the bill was referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The parties affected by this bill would likely include property owners, farmers, and other stakeholders involved in agriculture or forestry. You should have learned in middle school that laws can impact different groups in various ways. In this case, the changes to appraisal values could affect how properties are valued and potentially influence decisions related to land use.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The potential impact of this bill is relatively narrow, focusing on a specific aspect of property appraisals. However, as we discussed in class, even small changes to laws can have ripple effects. In this case, the changes could lead to more accurate or comprehensive valuations, which might influence decisions related to land use, conservation, or development.

Now, I hope that was clear and concise enough for everyone. As I always said in class, understanding how laws are made is essential for being an informed citizen. It's...disappointing that some people need a refresher on these basics.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (civics_teacher personality)

My fellow truth-seekers, gather 'round the table and behold the latest attempt by our benevolent overlords to further ensnare us in their web of deceit! S 638, a seemingly innocuous bill, is actually a Trojan horse designed to consolidate power and control over our nation's agricultural sector.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** On its surface, this bill appears to be a minor tweak to the Thye-Blatnik Act of 1948, which deals with land appraisals. However, I've dug deeper, and what I've uncovered will make your blood run cold! The true purpose of S 638 is to grant the Secretary of Agriculture unprecedented authority to determine the "highest fair appraised value" of land, including historical values. This is nothing short of a power grab, folks!

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends Section 5 of the Thye-Blatnik Act by inserting language that allows the Secretary of Agriculture to consider not only current market values but also "historical fair appraised values" when determining land value. This is a clever ruse, as it enables the government to retroactively reassess and revalue land, potentially leading to widespread confiscation and redistribution.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** Farmers, ranchers, and private landowners beware! You are the primary targets of this legislation. The government will use S 638 to strong-arm you into selling your land at below-market rates or risk facing crippling fines and penalties. Meanwhile, corporate agribusinesses and government-backed entities will reap the benefits of this rigged system.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The consequences of S 638 are far-reaching and ominous. By centralizing control over land values, the government can manipulate markets, dictate agricultural production, and ultimately decide who gets to own land in America. This is a classic example of Agenda 21-style sustainable development, where the state seeks to micromanage every aspect of our lives under the guise of environmentalism.

Wake up, sheeple! S 638 is not just a minor bill; it's a key component in the government's plan to control the food supply and dictate the future of American agriculture. We must resist this insidious legislation and expose the truth before it's too late!

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (conspiracy_uncle personality)

(Deep breath) Folks, gather 'round, because we've got a real doozy of a bill on our hands here. S 638, the "amend the Act of June 22, 1948" bill – yeah, that's a real attention-grabber, isn't it? (smirk)

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** This bill is all about... (dramatic pause) ...appraisals! That's right, folks. The main purpose of this bill is to tweak the way we determine the value of certain properties under the Thye-Blatnik Act. Now, I know what you're thinking – "What could possibly be more thrilling than appraisals?" (wink)

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends Section 5 of the Act by changing the way we calculate the fair appraised value of properties. Instead of just using the current fair market value, it now includes "historical fair appraised values" as determined by the Secretary of Agriculture. (air quotes) "Historical fair appraised values"... sounds like a real mouthful, doesn't it? (smirk)

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** Well, this bill is clearly a threat to our freedom... just kidding! (chuckle) Seriously though, it affects property owners, farmers, and the agriculture industry as a whole. But let's be real, folks – this is all about the elites trying to control our land and dictate how we use it. I mean, who needs individual property rights when you've got bureaucrats in Washington telling you what your land is worth? (outraged tone)

**Potential Impact & Implications:** Now, some of you might be thinking, "But wait, isn't this just a minor tweak to an obscure law?" Ah, no! This is all part of the Deep State's master plan to erode our property rights and consolidate power in the hands of unelected bureaucrats. Mark my words, folks – this bill is just the tip of the iceberg. Next thing you know, they'll be coming for your guns... or your land... or your freedom! (dramatic music plays)

In conclusion, S 638 is a clear example of government overreach and an attack on our fundamental freedoms. We must stand strong against this bill and protect our property rights from the elites who seek to control us all. (pounds fist on desk)

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (fox_host personality)

Another masterpiece of legislative theater. S 638, the "We're-Going-to-Fix-a-70-Year-Old-Law-and-Pretend-it's-a-Big-Deal" Act.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The main purpose of this bill is to give Senators Smith and Klobuchar something to put on their campaign websites. It's a classic case of "Look, we're doing something!" without actually accomplishing anything meaningful. The objective? To amend the Thye-Blatnik Act, because, why not?

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** Oh boy, are you ready for this? They're changing the way appraisals are done by inserting a few words that essentially say "we'll use the highest fair value we can find." Wow. I bet the Secretary of Agriculture is just thrilled to have more paperwork to deal with.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects: farmers, landowners, and anyone who's been asleep for 70 years and didn't notice this law was still on the books. Oh, and let's not forget the lobbyists who'll make a killing (pun intended) "advising" Congress on how to implement these earth-shattering changes.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** Zilch. Zero. Zip. This bill is a placebo, designed to make voters think their representatives are doing something useful. Meanwhile, the real issues – like corruption, cronyism, and actual problems affecting Americans' lives – will continue to fester.

Diagnosis: This bill has all the symptoms of "Legislative Attention Deficit Disorder" (LADD). It's a desperate attempt to distract from the fact that Congress is too incompetent to tackle meaningful reforms. The sponsors are suffering from a bad case of "Re-election Fever," and this bill is their misguided attempt to self-medicate.

Treatment: A healthy dose of skepticism, followed by a strong prescription of "Who Cares?" This bill will likely pass with flying colors, because who doesn't love a good game of legislative theater? But don't worry, folks; it won't make a difference in the grand scheme of things.

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

**Bill Summary: S. 638 - Amending the Act of June 22, 1948**

**Main Purpose and Objectives:** The primary objective of S. 638 is to amend the Thye-Blatnik Act of 1948, a law governing the appraisal and sale of certain lands managed by the US Department of Agriculture (USDA). The bill aims to update the appraisal process for these lands to ensure that their value is accurately reflected.

**Key Provisions and Changes to Existing Law:** The bill modifies Section 5 of the Thye-Blatnik Act by changing the way appraisals are conducted. Specifically, it requires the Secretary of Agriculture to consider not only the current fair market value but also historical fair appraised values when determining the value of these lands. This change is intended to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the land's value over time.

**Affected Parties and Stakeholders:** The affected parties include:

* The US Department of Agriculture (USDA), which manages the lands in question * Landowners and lessees who may be impacted by changes to the appraisal process * Potential buyers or sellers of these lands, who will be subject to the updated appraisal requirements * Environmental groups and conservation organizations, as the bill's provisions may influence land use decisions

**Potential Impact and Implications:** The potential impact of S. 638 is multifaceted:

* **Accurate land valuations**: The updated appraisal process may lead to more accurate assessments of land value, which can inform decision-making related to land management, sales, and conservation. * **Increased transparency**: Considering historical fair appraised values may provide a clearer understanding of the land's value over time, promoting transparency in land transactions. * **Potential changes to land use**: The bill's provisions could influence land use decisions, as more accurate valuations may lead to different conclusions about the suitability of lands for various purposes (e.g., conservation, agriculture, or development).

Overall, S. 638 aims to improve the appraisal process for certain USDA-managed lands, promoting accuracy and transparency in land valuation.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (neutral personality)

Let's dive into this bill, S 638, and break it down in a chill way.

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

This bill is all about amending the Thye-Blatnik Act of 1948, which deals with land appraisals. The main goal here is to update how the Secretary of Agriculture determines the fair value of lands that are being sold or exchanged. Think of it like reassessing the worth of a gnarly wave – you gotta take into account its historical awesomeness, bro.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

The bill makes one key change: it adds "historical fair appraised values" to the calculation of a land's value. This means that when determining the worth of a piece of land, the Secretary of Agriculture has to consider not just its current market value but also what it was worth in the past. It's like looking at the whole wave, from its formation to its crash, instead of just focusing on the present moment.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

This bill affects anyone who deals with land sales or exchanges involving the federal government, particularly:

* The Secretary of Agriculture and their team * Landowners and farmers who sell or exchange land with the feds * Environmental groups and conservationists who care about public lands

These stakeholders will need to adapt to this new way of calculating land values, which might impact how they negotiate deals or make decisions.

**Potential Impact & Implications**

This bill has some far-reaching implications, bro. By considering historical values, it could:

* Help preserve cultural and environmental heritage sites by recognizing their past significance * Affect the prices of land sales and exchanges, potentially benefiting or hurting different stakeholders * Influence how we think about the value of public lands and natural resources

It's like catching a wave that's been building for years – you gotta be ready to ride it out. This bill might seem small, but its impact could be significant.

Anyway, dude, that's S 638 in a nutshell. It's all about updating how we calculate land values to include historical context. Pretty chill, right?

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (surfer personality)

**Bill Analysis: S 638 - A Bill to Amend the Act of June 22, 1948**

**Main Purpose & Objectives** The primary objective of S 638 is to amend the Thye-Blatnik Act of 1948, specifically Section 5, which pertains to appraisals. The bill aims to modify the appraisal process for certain properties, allowing the Secretary of Agriculture to consider historical fair appraised values when determining the highest fair appraised value.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The bill strikes the phrase "of the fair appraised value of such" and inserts "of the highest fair appraised value, including historical fair appraised values, as determined by the Secretary of Agriculture in accordance with this section, of such." This change grants the Secretary more flexibility in determining property values, potentially leading to increased valuations.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders** The affected parties include:

1. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), which will be responsible for implementing the new appraisal process. 2. Property owners and lessees who may benefit from increased valuations. 3. Taxpayers, as the bill's provisions could lead to changes in tax assessments and revenue.

**Potential Impact & Implications** The bill's impact is likely to be significant, particularly for rural areas where agricultural properties are prevalent. The consideration of historical fair appraised values may result in higher property valuations, potentially leading to:

1. Increased tax revenues for local governments. 2. Higher property values, benefiting landowners and lessees. 3. Changes in USDA's management of public lands and resources.

**Monied Interest Analysis** While the bill's text does not explicitly reveal monied interests, it is likely that agricultural industry groups, such as the American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) and the National Cattlemen's Beef Association (NCBA), may have influenced the legislation. These organizations often advocate for policies benefiting rural landowners and agricultural producers.

**Committee Capture** The bill was referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, which has a history of being influenced by agricultural industry interests. Senator Boozman, who reported the bill without amendment, has received significant campaign contributions from agricultural PACs, including the AFBF and NCBA.

In conclusion, S 638 appears to be a bill that benefits rural landowners and agricultural producers, potentially at the expense of taxpayers. The consideration of historical fair appraised values may lead to increased property valuations, resulting in higher tax revenues for local governments. However, the true motivations behind this legislation remain unclear, and further investigation is necessary to uncover any potential backroom deals or industry influence.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (whistleblower personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Sen. Smith, Tina [D-MN]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$74,500

22 donors

PACs

Organizations

$21,700

Committees

Individuals

$52,800

No PAC contributions found

OTOE MISSOURIA TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA

2 transactions

$6,600

MUSCOGEE CREEK NATION

3 transactions

$5,300

MILLE LACS BAND OF OJIBWE INDIANS

2 transactions

$2,500

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

2 transactions

$2,300

MIAMI TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA

1 transaction

$2,000

FOND DU LAC BAND

1 transaction

$1,000

PRAIRIE ISLAND TRIBAL COUNCIL

1 transaction

$1,000

LOWER SIOUX INDIAN COMMUNITY

1 transaction

$500

SOBOBA BAND OF LUISENO INDIANS

1 transaction

$500

No committee contributions found

HUSS, ALVIN JR

2 transactions

$6,600

HUSS, RUTH

2 transactions

$6,600

BLUE, ALLEN

2 transactions

$6,600

BROWN, TEAL

1 transaction

$3,300

BURNETT, JASON

1 transaction

$3,300

GABBERT, MARTHA W.

1 transaction

$3,300

JACKSON, KATHERINE

1 transaction

$3,300

VITALE, ANGELO

1 transaction

$3,300

ABDEY, JULIAN

1 transaction

$3,300

ARREDONDO, CANISE

1 transaction

$3,300

ATIQULLAH, NAFIS

1 transaction

$3,300

BERGH, KJELL

1 transaction

$3,300

BROWN, ANDY

1 transaction

$3,300

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

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

Sen. Klobuchar, Amy [D-MN]

ID: K000367

Top Contributors

LEECH LAKE BAND OF OJIBWE

OrganizationCASS LAKE, MN

$3,300

Nov 5, 2024

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$3,300

Aug 25, 2023

CHOCTAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA

OrganizationDURANT, OK

$2,500

Oct 7, 2024

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$2,300

Jul 17, 2023

ARISTOTLE INTERNATIONAL

CONDUIT TOTAL LISTED IN AGG. FIELD

OrganizationWASHINGTON, DC

$500

Jul 19, 2024

SMITH, BRADFORD

MICROSOFT CORPORATION • ATTORNEY

IndividualBELLEVUE, WA

$6,600

Mar 30, 2023

SMITH, BRADFORD

IndividualBELLEVUE, WA

$6,600

Mar 30, 2023

BADEN, DREW

PROFESSOR • UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND

IndividualBETHESDA, MD

$6,600

Feb 23, 2024

CAUCHY, CONSTANCE

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualMIDLAND, MI

$6,600

Jun 2, 2024

BADEN, DREW

IndividualBETHESDA, MD

$6,600

Mar 11, 2024

Donor Network - Sen. Smith, Tina [D-MN]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

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

Showing 55 nodes and 74 connections

Total contributions: $74

Top Donors - Sen. Smith, Tina [D-MN]

Showing top 22 donors by contribution amount

9 Orgs13 Individuals

Industry Impact

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

+Agribusinessconfidence 0.80
Section 1 of the bill amends the Thye-Blatnik Act to consider the highest fair appraised value, including historical values, which may benefit agribusiness by potentially increasing land valuation and subsequent subsidies or support.

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: 58%

Pages: 344-346AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill's focus on improving land appraisal accuracy and transparency aligns with USDA's broader mission of managing agricultural lands effectively and providing reliable information for decision-making, which is reflected in Project 2025's emphasis on USDA's role in acquiring and diffusing useful agricultural information."

Key themes:USDAland valuationappraisal processland managementtransparency

— 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).

Section Three

Moderate

Vector: 58%

Pages: 323-325AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill's focus on accurate and transparent land appraisals supports private property rights and sound economic decision-making, which aligns with the Project 2025 USDA emphasis on private property, rule of law, and defending American agriculture, though it does not directly address broader policy goals like food system transformation or dietary freedom."

Key themes:private property rightssound economic analysisland managementUSDA oversightfair market valuation

— 291 — Department of Agriculture about the importance of sound science to inform the USDA’s work and respect for personal freedom and individual dietary choices, private property rights, and the rule of law. Taking these factors into account, below is a model USDA mission statement: To develop and disseminate agricultural information and research, identify and address concrete public health and safety threats directly connected to food and agriculture, and remove both unjustified foreign trade barriers for U.S. goods and domestic government barriers that undermine access to safe and affordable food absent a compelling need—all based on the importance of sound science, personal freedom, private property, the rule of law, and service to all Americans. OVERVIEW In 1862, President Abraham Lincoln signed into law the legislation that created the USDA.4 The department had a very narrow mission focused on the dissemi- nation of information connected to agriculture and “to procure, propagate and distribute among the people new valuable seeds and plants.”5 During the last 160 years, the scope of the USDA’s work has expanded well beyond that narrow mis- sion—and well beyond agriculture itself. In addition to being a distributor of farm subsidies, the USDA runs the food stamp program and other food-related wel- fare programs and covers issues including conservation, biofuels, forestry, and rural programs. Based on the USDA’s fiscal year (FY) 2023 budget summary, outlays are esti- mated at $261 billion: $221 billion for mandatory programs and $39 billion for discretionary programs.6 These outlays are broken down as follows: nutrition assis- tance (70 percent); farm, conservation, and commodity programs (14 percent); “all other,” which includes rural development, research, food safety, marketing and regulatory, and departmental management (11 percent); and forestry (5 percent).7 The USDA has provided a summary of its size, explaining, “Today, USDA is com- prised of 29 agencies organized under eight Mission Areas and 16 Staff Offices, with nearly 100,000 employees serving the American people at more than 6,000 locations across the country and abroad.”8 MAJOR PRIORITY ISSUES AND SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS For an incoming Administration, there are numerous issues that should be addressed at the USDA. This chapter identifies and discusses many of the most important issues. The initial issues discussed should be priority issues for the next Administration: Defend American Agriculture. It is deeply unfortunate that the first issue identified must be a willingness of the incoming Administration to defend Amer- ican agriculture, but this is precisely what the top priority for that Administration — 292 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise should be. As previously discussed, the Biden Administration is seeking to use the federal government to transform the American food system.9 The USDA web site explains: The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), alongside Biden–Harris Administration leadership and the people of this great country, has embarked on another historic journey: transforming the food system as we know it— from farm to fork, and at every stage along the supply chain.10 The federal government does not need to transform the food system or develop a national plan to intervene across the supply chain. Instead, it should respect American farmers, truckers, and everyone who makes the food supply chain so resilient and successful. One of the important lessons learned during the COVID- 19 pandemic was how critical it is to remove barriers in the food supply chain—not to increase them. The Biden Administration’s centrally planned transformational effort mini- mizes the importance of efficient agricultural production and instead places issues such as climate change and equity front and center. The USDA’s Strategic Plan Fiscal Years 2022–2026 identifies six strategic goals, the first three of which focus on issues such as climate change, renewable energy, and systemic racism. In the Secretary of Agriculture’s message, there is only one mention of affordable food— and nothing about efficient production and the incredible innovation and respect for the environment that already exists within the agricultural community.11 The Biden Administration’s USDA strongly supported12 the recent United Nations (U.N.) Food Systems Summit. According to the USDA: The stated goal of the Food Systems Summit was to transform the way the world produces, consumes and thinks about foods within the context of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and to meet the challenges of poverty, food security, malnutrition, population growth, climate change, and natural resource degradation.13 Not unlike those who oppose reliable and affordable energy production, there is a disdain, especially by some on the Left, for American agriculture and the food system.14 The Biden Administration’s vision of a federal government developing a plan that “fixes” agriculture and focuses on issues secondary to food production is very disturbing. A recent USDA-created program captures both the disrespect for American farmers and the Biden Administration’s effort to dictate agricultural practices. The USDA explained that it was concerned with farmers not transitioning to organic farming, and therefore announced that it will dedicate $300 million to

Department of Agriculture

Weak

Vector: 58%

Pages: 344-346AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill addresses land appraisal accuracy for USDA-managed lands, while the Project 2025 USDA section focuses on transforming the food system, organic initiatives, and strategic resilience; the connection is indirect and limited to general USDA land management concerns."

Key themes:land valuationUSDAland managementconservation

Section Three

Weak

Vector: 56%

Pages: 323-325AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill modifies USDA land appraisal procedures to improve valuation accuracy, whereas Project 2025 advocates limiting USDA's broad role and reducing government intervention in agriculture. Their connection is limited to both involving USDA land oversight, but their objectives diverge significantly."

Key themes:USDAland managementappraisal processgovernment oversight

— 290 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise protection and management, rural development, and related issues with a commitment to delivering equitable and climate smart opportunities that inspire and help America thrive.1 The first part of the mission statement regarding the issues covered is not new to the Biden Administration; it reflects the overly broad nature of the USDA’s work. However, the language bringing in equity and climate change is new to the Biden Administration and part of the USDA’s express effort to transform agricultural production.2 The USDA’s new vision statement illuminates the focus of this effort: An equitable and climate smart food and agriculture economy that protects and improves the health, nutrition and quality of life of all Americans, yields healthy land, forests and clean water, helps rural America thrive, and feeds the world.3 This effort is one of a federal central plan to put climate change and envi- ronmental issues ahead of the most important requirements of agriculture—to efficiently produce safe food. The USDA would apparently use its power to change the very nature of the food and agriculture economy into one that is “equitable and climate smart.” As an initial matter, the USDA should not try to control and shape the economy, but should instead remove obstacles that hinder food production. Further, it should not place ancillary issues, such as environmental issues, ahead of agricultural production itself. A Proper Mission Statement. Even before the Biden Administration’s rad- ical effort to reshape the USDA’s work, the USDA’s mission was and is too broad, including serving as a major welfare agency through implementation of programs such as food stamps. This far-reaching mission is not the fault of the USDA, but of Congress, which has given the department its extensive power. Congress must limit the USDA’s role. A proper mission would clarify that the department’s primary focus is on agriculture and that the USDA serves all Amer- icans. The USDA’s “client” is the American people in general, not a subset of interests, such as farmers, meatpackers, environmental groups, etc. Within this agricultural focus, the USDA should develop and disseminate information and research (the historical role of the USDA); identify and address concrete threats to public health and safety arising directly from food and agri- culture; remove unjustified foreign trade barriers blocking market access for American agricultural goods; and generally remove government barriers that undermine access to safe and affordable food across the food supply chain. Core principles should be included within any mission statement, including a recognition that farmers, and the food system in general, should be free from unnecessary government intervention. Further, there should be clear statements — 291 — Department of Agriculture about the importance of sound science to inform the USDA’s work and respect for personal freedom and individual dietary choices, private property rights, and the rule of law. Taking these factors into account, below is a model USDA mission statement: To develop and disseminate agricultural information and research, identify and address concrete public health and safety threats directly connected to food and agriculture, and remove both unjustified foreign trade barriers for U.S. goods and domestic government barriers that undermine access to safe and affordable food absent a compelling need—all based on the importance of sound science, personal freedom, private property, the rule of law, and service to all Americans. OVERVIEW In 1862, President Abraham Lincoln signed into law the legislation that created the USDA.4 The department had a very narrow mission focused on the dissemi- nation of information connected to agriculture and “to procure, propagate and distribute among the people new valuable seeds and plants.”5 During the last 160 years, the scope of the USDA’s work has expanded well beyond that narrow mis- sion—and well beyond agriculture itself. In addition to being a distributor of farm subsidies, the USDA runs the food stamp program and other food-related wel- fare programs and covers issues including conservation, biofuels, forestry, and rural programs. Based on the USDA’s fiscal year (FY) 2023 budget summary, outlays are esti- mated at $261 billion: $221 billion for mandatory programs and $39 billion for discretionary programs.6 These outlays are broken down as follows: nutrition assis- tance (70 percent); farm, conservation, and commodity programs (14 percent); “all other,” which includes rural development, research, food safety, marketing and regulatory, and departmental management (11 percent); and forestry (5 percent).7 The USDA has provided a summary of its size, explaining, “Today, USDA is com- prised of 29 agencies organized under eight Mission Areas and 16 Staff Offices, with nearly 100,000 employees serving the American people at more than 6,000 locations across the country and abroad.”8 MAJOR PRIORITY ISSUES AND SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS For an incoming Administration, there are numerous issues that should be addressed at the USDA. This chapter identifies and discusses many of the most important issues. The initial issues discussed should be priority issues for the next Administration: Defend American Agriculture. It is deeply unfortunate that the first issue identified must be a willingness of the incoming Administration to defend Amer- ican agriculture, but this is precisely what the top priority for that Administration

Trade

Minimal

Vector: 56%

Pages: 813-815AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill S. 638 focuses on amending land appraisal procedures under the Thye-Blatnik Act for USDA-managed lands, which is unrelated to trade policy objectives such as reducing trade deficits, addressing nonreciprocal barriers, or implementing reciprocal tariffs as outlined in the Project 2025 Trade section."

— 781 — Trade 5 ELBAT )8 fo 8 egaP( noisserggA cimonocE fo seirogetaC s’anihC tsinummoC erutpaC gnigremE hceT-hgiH taht seirtsudnI erutuF evirD yeK eriuqcA dna eruceS tcetorP dna htworG seigolonhceT etanimoD lortnoC emoH s'anihC stnemecnavdA morf PI dna lanoitidarT larutaN eroC s’anihC dnapxE morf tekraM ,seiciloP ,stcA s'anihC esnefeD ni seirtnuoC rehtO gnirutcafunaM secruoseR labolG fo erahS noititepmoC fo secitcarP dna yrtsudnI .S.U eht dna seirtsudnI yllabolG stekraM stropmI dna noisserggA cimonocE ,gnikeeS-ygolonhceT % % % ngieroF detceriD-etatS tnemtsevnI tceriD % % % tfarcypS lanoitidarT gnipmuditnA edavE ot pihssnarT % seituD gniliavretnuoC dna stnemtsujdA xaT deddA-eulaV % % ezidisbuS setabeR dna stropxE esenihC decrofnE ylxaL dna kaeW % % swaL latnemnorivnE seigolonhceT eht snetaerhT noisserggA cimonocE s’anihC woH ,yciloP gnirutcafunaM dna edarT fo ecffi O esuoH etihW :ECRUOS /tnetnoc-pw/vog.sevihcra.esuohetihwpmurt//:sptth ,8102 enuJ ,dlroW eht dna setatS detinU eht fo ytreporP lautcelletnI dna gro.egatireh A .)3202 ,12 hcraM dessecca( fdp.FDP-81.81.6-tropeR-ygolonhceT-anihC-LANIF/60/8102/sdaolpu — 782 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise reduction in the U.S. bilateral trade deficit with India. Similarly, if Taiwan were to reduce its tariffs to U.S. levels, the size of the U.S. bilateral trade deficit with Taiwan would fall by 6 percent. If the U.S. imposed a mirror tariff, its bilateral trade deficit with Taiwan would fall by 59 percent. These results again underscore the high degree of unfair, unbalanced, and nonreciprocal trade that currently exists between the U.S. and much of the rest of the world, which penalizes American farmers, ranchers, manufacturers, and workers because of the WTO-MFN conundrum. These simulations also demon- strate that implementation of the USRTA most likely would substantially reduce the U.S. trade deficit while creating hundreds of thousands of new jobs. These benefits notwithstanding, however, the U.S. would still face a substantial over- all trade deficit and substantial bilateral trade deficits with many of its major trading partners. Why might this be so? Because under WTO rules, America still faces numerous nonreciprocal nontariff barriers around the world. For example, one of America’s largest trading partners, Japan, runs a significant bilateral trade surplus in goods with the U.S.—more than $70 billion a year. While Japan has relatively low tariffs, it ranks high on the nontariff barrier scale. In such cases, which are numerous, pas- sage of the USRTA would likely also be very helpful in reducing nontariff barriers. This is because under the powers provided by the USRTA, if a foreign country imposes significantly higher nontariff barriers, then the President has the authority to “negotiate and seek to enter into an agreement” that “commits the country to… eliminate [its] nontariff barriers.”16 If the country refuses to come to the negoti- ating table and lower its nontariff barriers, the President has the authority to levy reciprocal duties to offset or mirror those barriers. In summary, passage of the USRTA would go a long way toward leveling the playing field for American farmers, ranchers, manufacturers, and workers who are now forced to compete in an intrinsically unfair, unbalanced, and nonreciprocal WTO-MFN system. Nor is the USRTA necessarily the only possible legislative way to address this issue. In 2017, then-House Speaker Paul Ryan (R–WI) and then-House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Kevin Brady (R–TX) proposed a “border adjust- ment tax.” The proposed border adjustment would have eliminated the ability of corporations to deduct the cost of imports while eliminating the tax on income attributable to exports. This border adjustment tax would have shifted the U.S. corporate income tax from an origin-based tax applying to the production of goods and services in the United States to a destination-based tax applying to the con- sumption of goods and services in the U.S. This tax—strongly opposed by American multinational corporations and big- box retailers—not only would have leveled the playing field with respect to WTO rules, but also would have provided an innovative alternative to the application of

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. Smith, Tina

Leech Lake Reservation Restoration Amendments Act of 2025

119/s/622

A bill to accept the request to revoke the charter of incorporation of the Lower Sioux Indian Community in the State of Minnesota at the request of that Community, and for other purposes.

119/s/621

Women and Lung Cancer Research and Preventive Services Act of 2025

119/s/1157

Back to All Bills