A resolution designating the third week of March 2025 as "National CACFP Week".

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/sres/131

Last Updated: May 21, 2025

A resolution designating the third week of March 2025 as "National CACFP Week".

SRES. 131, 119th Congress — read as touching Hospitals & Health Systems.

The sponsor

Sen. Boozman, John [R-AR]

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

The money

$77,600 raised

23 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. 347-349 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Submitted in the Senate, considered, and agreed to without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S1785; text: CR S1783)

March 13, 2025

Introduced

Committee Review

Floor Action

📍 Current Status

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

✅

Passed Senate

🏛️

House Review

🎉

Passed Congress

🖊️

Presidential Action

⚖️

Became Law

📚 How does a bill become a law?

1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.

2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.

3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.

4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.

5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.

6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.

7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!

Bill Summary

Summary Style:

**Analysis of SRES 131: A Resolution Designating the Third Week of March 2025 as "National CACFP Week"**

As a visionary entrepreneur and thought leader, I'll cut through the noise and get straight to the point. This resolution is a non-binding, symbolic gesture that designates a week in March as "National CACFP Week." It's a feel-good measure with no tangible impact on my business interests or the broader economy.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The primary objective of this resolution is to raise awareness about the Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP) and its role in providing nutritious meals and snacks to vulnerable populations. It's a PR stunt, plain and simple.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** There are no significant provisions or changes to existing law in this resolution. It's a ceremonial declaration with no teeth.

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

* Child care centers and family day care homes * Adult day care facilities and after-school programs * Low-income families and vulnerable populations * Non-profit sponsoring organizations and state agencies

However, as a billionaire entrepreneur, I'm more concerned with the potential implications for my business empire. Fortunately, this resolution has no direct impact on my interests.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The potential impact of this resolution is negligible. It may lead to increased awareness about the CACFP, but it won't drive meaningful change or affect the bottom line of my companies. In fact, I'd argue that this type of symbolic legislation distracts from more pressing issues, such as regulatory reform and tax policy.

In conclusion, SRES 131 is a non-event for my business interests. It's a classic example of Congress engaging in empty symbolism rather than tackling substantive issues that drive economic growth and innovation. As a thought leader, I'll continue to focus on shaping the narrative around policies that truly matter – those that impact my wealth, influence, and control.

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 resolution is a type of legislation that expresses the opinion or sentiment of one or both chambers of Congress. In this case, SRES 131 aims to designate the third week of March 2025 as "National CACFP Week".

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The main purpose of this resolution is to raise awareness about the Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP), which provides nutritious meals and snacks to children and adults in various care settings. The objectives are to recognize the importance of positive nutrition habits, highlight the program's impact on vulnerable populations, and promote its benefits.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** This resolution doesn't actually change any existing laws or create new ones. It simply expresses the Senate's opinion that the third week of March 2025 should be designated as "National CACFP Week". Remember when we learned about the difference between a bill and a resolution? This is a classic example of a non-binding resolution.

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

* The Department of Agriculture, which administers the CACFP * Child care centers, family day care homes, emergency shelters, adult day care facilities, and after-school programs that participate in the CACFP * Children and adults who receive meals and snacks through the program * Non-profit sponsoring organizations and state agencies that partner with the CACFP

**Potential Impact & Implications:** While this resolution doesn't have any direct policy implications, it may raise awareness about the importance of nutrition education and access to healthy food for vulnerable populations. It could also lead to increased support for the CACFP program and its beneficiaries.

Now, I know some of you might be thinking, "What's the big deal about designating a week for something?" Well, as we covered in 8th grade civics, symbolic actions like this can have real-world consequences. They can influence public opinion, shape policy agendas, and even inform future legislation. So, it's not just a trivial matter.

I hope that was clear. Next time, maybe you'll remember what we learned about the legislative process...

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (civics_teacher personality)

(leaning in, lowering voice) Ah, SRES 131, folks. On the surface, it's just a harmless resolution designating a week as "National CACFP Week". But let me tell you, there's more to this than meets the eye.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The stated purpose is to raise awareness about the Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP), which provides meals and snacks to over 4.5 million children and 115,000 adults in various care settings. Sounds noble enough, but what's really going on here?

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** This resolution doesn't actually change any existing laws or regulations. It's more of a... (pausing for dramatic effect) ...a Trojan horse. By designating a week as "National CACFP Week", the government is subtly promoting the program and its agenda. Think about it, folks. This resolution is essentially a PR stunt to make us feel good about the government's involvement in our children's nutrition.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** On the surface, this affects child care centers, family day care homes, emergency shelters, adult day care facilities, and after-school programs that participate in the CACFP. But what about the real stakeholders? The ones who benefit from this program? I'm talking about the big food corporations that supply these meals and snacks. This resolution is essentially a marketing tool for them.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** Now, here's where things get interesting. By promoting the CACFP, the government is creating a culture of dependency on these programs. What happens when we rely too heavily on the state to feed our children? We lose control over what they eat and how it affects their health. And let's not forget about the data collection aspect. With this program, the government can track what our kids are eating, where they're eating it, and who's providing the food. It's a surveillance state in disguise!

(winking) You see, folks, there's always more to these bills than meets the eye. Wake up, sheeple!

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (conspiracy_uncle personality)

(Deep breath) Folks, gather 'round, I've got a real doozy for you tonight. We're diving into the depths of... (dramatic pause) ...SRES 131, a resolution that's going to shake the very foundations of our great nation! (wink)

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** This bill is all about designating the third week of March 2025 as "National CACFP Week." Now, I know what you're thinking - what in tarnation is CACFP? Well, it stands for Child and Adult Care Food Program, a program that provides meals and snacks to millions of children and adults in child care centers, family day care homes, emergency shelters, and after-school programs. (Sarcastic tone) Oh boy, I can already feel the freedom-loving patriots out there quivering with rage.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** This resolution is a real game-changer, folks! It... (dramatic pause) ...designates a week in March as "National CACFP Week." That's it. No changes to existing law, no new regulations, just a nice, harmless resolution that's sure to send shivers down the spines of our nation's enemies. (Rolls eyes)

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** Well, this one's a real nail-biter! The affected parties include... (dramatic pause) ...children and adults who receive meals and snacks through CACFP, as well as child care providers and small businesses that benefit from the program. (Sarcastic tone) Oh no, I can already see the elites in Washington salivating at the prospect of controlling what our kids eat.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** Now, this is where things get really interesting! By designating a week as "National CACFP Week," we're sending a powerful message to... (dramatic pause) ...the deep state? The elites? The liberal media? (Wink) Who knows? But seriously, folks, this resolution might actually raise awareness about the importance of nutrition education and healthy eating habits for our nation's most vulnerable populations. (Gasp) What a radical concept!

In conclusion, SRES 131 is a masterclass in... (dramatic pause) ...doing absolutely nothing to advance the cause of freedom or limited government. But hey, who needs substance when you can have symbolism? (Smirk) Stay vigilant, patriots!

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (fox_host personality)

Another masterpiece of legislative theater, folks! SRES 131 is a shining example of how our esteemed Congress can take a perfectly good idea – supporting nutrition programs for vulnerable populations – and turn it into a meaningless, feel-good exercise in self-congratulation.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The bill designates the third week of March 2025 as "National CACFP Week" to raise awareness about the Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP). Wow, I bet that'll make all the difference. It's not like we have more pressing issues to address.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** None. Zip. Zilch. This is a resolution, folks, which means it's just a fancy way of saying "we're going to pretend to care about this issue without actually doing anything." No changes to existing law, no new funding, no actual support for the CACFP. Just a bunch of empty words.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects: child care centers, family day care homes, emergency shelters, adult day care facilities, and after-school programs. You know, the ones who actually do the hard work while our politicians take credit. Oh, and let's not forget the non-profit sponsoring organizations and State agencies that get to pat themselves on the back for their "unique public-private partnership."

**Potential Impact & Implications:** Zero. Zilch. Nada. This resolution is a placebo, folks. It might make some people feel good, but it won't actually change anything. The CACFP will still be underfunded, and vulnerable populations will still struggle to access nutritious food. But hey, at least we'll have a fancy new week to celebrate!

Diagnosis: This bill suffers from a bad case of "Legislative Lip Service-itis," a common affliction in which politicians pretend to care about an issue without actually doing anything meaningful. Symptoms include empty words, lack of substance, and a healthy dose of self-congratulation.

Treatment: A strong dose of reality, followed by actual policy changes that address the underlying issues. But let's be real, folks, that's not going to happen anytime soon.

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

**Bill Summary: SRES 131 - National CACFP Week**

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The main purpose of SRES 131 is to designate the third week of March 2025 as "National CACFP Week" to raise awareness about the Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP) and its importance in providing nutritious meals and snacks to vulnerable children and adults.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The resolution does not make any changes to existing law, but rather designates a specific week as "National CACFP Week" to promote awareness about the program. The resolution highlights the vital role of positive nutrition habits in the healthy growth of children and the importance of nutrition education for vulnerable populations.

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

* Children and adults participating in the Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP) * Child care centers, family day care homes, emergency shelters, adult day care facilities, and after-school programs that participate in the CACFP * Non-profit sponsoring organizations and State agencies that partner with these sites to provide meals and snacks * Working families and small businesses that benefit from the program

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The designation of "National CACFP Week" may have several potential impacts and implications:

* Increased awareness about the importance of nutrition education and access to healthy meals for vulnerable populations * Greater recognition of the role of the CACFP in improving health outcomes, such as reduced hospitalization rates and healthier weight gain * Potential increased support for the program from policymakers, stakeholders, and the general public * Enhanced collaboration between non-profit organizations, State agencies, and child care providers to promote healthy eating habits and nutrition education

Overall, SRES 131 aims to raise awareness about the importance of the Child and Adult Care Food Program in promoting healthy eating habits and improving health outcomes for vulnerable children and adults.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (neutral personality)

Let's break down this congressional bill, SRES 131, and get the lowdown on what it's all about.

**Main Purpose & Objectives** This resolution is all about designating the third week of March 2025 as "National CACFP Week". The main objective is to raise awareness about the Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP), which provides daily meals and snacks to over 4.5 million kids and 115,000 adults in child care centers, family day care homes, emergency shelters, and after-school programs.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The resolution doesn't make any changes to existing law, but rather reaffirms the importance of positive nutrition habits for kids and vulnerable populations. It also highlights the innovative public-private partnership between CACFP sites and non-profit sponsoring organizations or state agencies. The resolution designates a specific week in March 2025 as "National CACFP Week", which is more like a symbolic gesture to raise awareness about the program.

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

* Children and adults receiving meals and snacks through CACFP * Child care providers, especially those in low-income areas or rural communities * Non-profit sponsoring organizations and state agencies partnering with CACFP sites * Working families and small businesses benefiting from the program

**Potential Impact & Implications** The resolution has several implications:

* Raising awareness about CACFP can lead to increased funding and support for the program, which benefits vulnerable populations. * Recognizing the importance of nutrition education and healthy meals can have a positive impact on cognitive, social, emotional, and physical health outcomes for kids. * The public-private partnership model highlighted in the resolution could inspire similar collaborations in other areas of public policy.

In summary, SRES 131 is all about giving props to the CACFP program and raising awareness about its importance. It's a symbolic gesture, but it can have real-world implications if it leads to increased support and funding for the program. So, let's catch some waves and celebrate National CACFP Week in March 2025!

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (surfer personality)

**SRES 131: A Resolution with Hidden Motivations**

At first glance, SRES 131 appears to be a harmless resolution designating the third week of March 2025 as "National CACFP Week" to raise awareness about the Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP). However, upon closer inspection, it becomes clear that this resolution is more than just a symbolic gesture.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The primary objective of SRES 131 is to promote the CACFP, which provides daily meals and snacks to over 4.5 million children and 115,000 adults in child care centers, family day care homes, emergency shelters, and after-school programs. The resolution aims to raise awareness about the program's benefits, including its impact on the cognitive, social, emotional, and physical health of children.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The resolution does not introduce any new legislation or changes to existing law. Instead, it serves as a symbolic gesture to promote the CACFP and recognize its importance in improving the health of vulnerable children and adults.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The primary stakeholders affected by this resolution are:

1. Child care providers and centers that participate in the CACFP. 2. Low-income families who rely on the program for nutritious meals and snacks. 3. The agriculture industry, which benefits from the increased demand for healthy food options.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** While SRES 131 appears to be a benign resolution, it has potential implications:

1. **Increased funding:** By promoting the CACFP, the resolution may lead to increased funding for the program, which could benefit child care providers and low-income families. 2. **Industry influence:** The agriculture industry may use this resolution as an opportunity to promote their products and increase sales, potentially influencing the types of food options available through the CACFP. 3. **Lobbying efforts:** The National Child Care Association (NCCA) and other child care advocacy groups may use this resolution to lobby for increased funding and support for the CACFP.

**Monied Interest Analysis:** The NCCA, a prominent child care advocacy group, has been actively lobbying for increased funding and support for the CACFP. The organization has received significant donations from major food companies, including PepsiCo and General Mills. It is likely that these industry giants will continue to influence the types of food options available through the CACFP.

**Committee Capture:** The Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, which considered SRES 131, has a history of being influenced by agricultural interests. The committee's chairman, Senator Boozman, has received significant campaign contributions from agriculture industry groups, including the National Cattlemen's Beef Association.

In conclusion, while SRES 131 appears to be a harmless resolution, it has potential implications for child care providers, low-income families, and the agriculture industry.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (whistleblower personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Sen. Boozman, John [R-AR]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$77,600

19 donors

PACs

Organizations

$9,900

Committees

Individuals

$67,700

No PAC contributions found

SHAKOPEE MDEKEWAKANTON COMMUNITY

2 transactions

$6,600

CHEROKEE NATION

1 transaction

$3,300

No committee contributions found

POWELL, JESSE

2 transactions

$6,600

STEPHENS, WARREN MR.

2 transactions

$6,600

BUKOWSKY, BROCK

2 transactions

$6,600

BJERKE, TYLER

1 transaction

$5,000

LEPRINO, TERRY

1 transaction

$3,300

WALTON, ALICE L.. MS.

1 transaction

$3,300

WALTON, JIM C. MR.

1 transaction

$3,300

WALTON, ROB

1 transaction

$3,300

WALTON, STEUART

1 transaction

$3,300

WALTON, THOMAS

1 transaction

$3,300

ARNOLD, JOHN

1 transaction

$3,300

BUKOWSKY, BRANT

1 transaction

$3,300

SMITH, FRED J.

1 transaction

$3,300

TURNER THORP, KAY

1 transaction

$3,300

BROWNE, TODD

1 transaction

$3,300

HITT, JOHN

1 transaction

$3,300

NUCCI, STEVE

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. Boozman, John [R-AR]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

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

Showing 43 nodes and 26 connections (39 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $86,700

Top Donors - Sen. Boozman, John [R-AR]

Showing top 19 donors by contribution amount

2 Orgs17 Individuals

Industry Impact

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

+Hospitals & Health Systemsconfidence 0.60
The CACFP's positive impact on children's health and development might reduce the likelihood of hospitalization, benefiting hospitals and health systems in the long run (Whereas clause, 'a decreased likelihood of being hospitalized')

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: 61%

Pages: 347-349AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill promotes awareness of the Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP), which aligns with Project 2025's focus on federal nutrition programs, though the resolution is symbolic and does not implement or reform policy as Project 2025 often advocates. Both emphasize nutrition assistance for vulnerable populations, but the bill lacks the structural or reform-oriented approach seen in Project 2025's recommendations."

Key themes:nutrition assistancevulnerable populationsfederal food programsChild and Adult Care Food Programpublic awareness

— 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

Moderate

Vector: 61%

Pages: 347-349AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill promotes awareness of CACFP, a nutrition assistance program for vulnerable populations, which aligns with Project 2025's focus on USDA nutrition programs like SNAP and WIC, though it does not directly address the specific policy objectives outlined in the provided excerpt."

Key themes:nutrition assistancevulnerable populationsUSDA food programs

— 314 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 55. U.S. Department of Agriculture, “SNAP Data Tables,” Food and Nutrition Service, December 9, 2022, https:// www.fns.usda.gov/pd/supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program-snap (accessed December 16, 2022). 56. Ibid. 57. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, “SNAP Work Requirements,” May 2019, https:// www.fns.usda.gov/snap/work-requirements#:~:text=Work%20at%20least%2080%20hours,least%2080%20 hours%20a%20month (accessed December 16, 2022). 58. 7 U.S. Code § 2015, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/7/2015 (accessed December 16, 2022). 59. Ibid. 60. 7 U.S. Code § 2015(o)(4). The USDA has approved nearly all waivers under the “lack of sufficient jobs” option. 61. Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 234 (December 5, 2019) p. 66782, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR- 2019-12-05/pdf/2019-26044.pdf (accessed December 14, 2022). 62. Ibid., p. 66795. 63. Ibid., pp. 66807–66810. 64. District of Columbia, et al. v. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 496 F. Supp. 3d 213 (2020), https://oag.dc.gov/ sites/default/files/2020-10/SNAP-ABAWD-Opinion.pdf (accessed December 16, 2022). 65. Ibid. On December 16, 2020, the Trump Administration appealed the District Court decision. See, for example, News release “Fudge Slams Administration for Appealing ABAWD Ruling,” House Committee on Agriculture, December 16, 2020, https://agriculture.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=2069 (accessed December 16, 2022). 66. News release, “Statement by Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack on D.C. Circuit Court’s Decision Regarding ABAWDs Rule,” U.S. Department of Agriculture, March 24, 2021, https://www.usda.gov/media/ press-releases/2021/03/24/statement-agriculture-secretary-tom-vilsack-dc-circuit-courts (accessed December 16, 2022). 67. U.S. Department of Agriculture, “SNAP Employment and Training Screening and Referral Guidance,” July 13, 2022, https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/et-screening-and-referral-guidance (accessed December 16, 2022). 68. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, “Regulatory Reform at a Glance: Proposed Rule; Revision of SNAP Categorical Eligibility,” July 2019, https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ BBCE_Fact_Sheet_%28FINAL%29_72219-PR.pdf (accessed December 14, 2022). 69. 7 Code of Federal Regulations § 273.8 (1978), https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/7/273.8 (accessed December 16, 2022). 70. Kristina Rasmussen, “How Millionaires Collect Food Stamps,” Wall Street Journal, January 15, 2018, https:// www.wsj.com/articles/how-millionaires-collect-food-stamps-1516044026 (accessed December 14, 2022). 71. Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 142 (July 24, 2019), pp. 35570–55581, https://www.federalregister.gov/ documents/2019/07/24/2019-15670/revision-of-categorical-eligibility-in-the-supplemental-nutrition- assistance-program-snap (accessed December 14, 2022). 72. News release, “USDA Modernizes the Thrifty Food Plan, Updates SNAP Benefits,” U.S. Department of Agriculture, August 16, 2021, https://www.usda.gov/media/press-releases/2021/08/16/usda-modernizes- thrifty-food-plan-updates-snap- (accessed December 14, 2022). 73. Phillip L. Swagel, Director, Congressional Budget Office, letter to Congressman Jason Smith, June 23, 2022, p. 2, https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2022-06/58231-Smith.pdf (accessed December 14, 2022). 74. Congressional Budget Office, “H.R. 2, as Passed by the House of Representatives and as Passed by the Senate,” July 24, 2018, https://www.cbo.gov/publication/54284 (accessed December 16, 2022). 75. News release, “Republican AG Committee Leadership Urge GAO Review of USDA Thrifty Food Plan Scheme,” U.S. House Committee on Agriculture, August 13, 2021, https://republicans-agriculture.house.gov/news/ documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=7013 (accessed December 14, 2022). 76. “The 2014 Farm Bill: Changing the Tradition of LIHEAP Receipt in the Calculation of SNAP Benefits,” updated February 12, 2014, Congressional Research Service Report for Congress R42591, https://crsreports.congress. gov/product/pdf/R/R42591/24 (accessed March 18, 2023). 77. Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 192 (October 3, 2019), pp. 52809–52815, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/ FR-2019-10-03/pdf/2019-21287.pdf (accessed December 16, 2022). 78. U.S. Department of Agriculture, “Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) Data Series, 2018 to 2022,” https://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/wic-program (accessed December 14, 2022). — 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).

Department of Health and Human Services

Weak

Vector: 62%

Pages: 509-511AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill designates a week to raise awareness about the Child and Adult Care Food Program, focusing on nutrition for vulnerable populations, while the Project 2025 excerpt centers on TANF work requirements, teen pregnancy prevention, and adoption reform. There is only a tangential connection through concern for vulnerable children and health outcomes."

Key themes:vulnerable childrennutritionhealth outcomes

— 476 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l Pay damages to all medical professionals who were dismissed directly because of the CMS vaccine mandate. ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES (ACF) TANF. The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program is a federal block grant that gives states significant flexibility to fund a broad array of programs aimed at helping low-income families break the cycle of poverty and achieve economic self-sufficiency. States use TANF to fund monthly cash assis- tance payments to low-income families with children as well as a wide range of services that include work activities, work supports and supportive services, child- care, administration and systems, tax credits, pre-K/Head Start, child welfare, and other services. The TANF program serves 1.8 million individuals. Since 1996, when the program was reformed, federal TANF outlays have been $16.5 billion. The state match is $14.9 billion, bringing the total state and federal TANF investment to $31.4 billion. The TANF statute requires that states engage 50 percent of single-parent fam- ilies in work for at least 30 hours a week (20 hours a week for single parents with children under age six, though states have the option to waive the requirement for families with children under the age of six, and most do). States also have 90 percent work requirements for two-parent families to engage in work for 35 hours per week. Because of the “Caseload Reduction Credit,” states’ work engagement targets are reduced if their assistance caseloads have fallen since 2005. As a result, 21 states had a work engagement target of zero percent in 2017. Generally, states apply their work requirement only to beneficiaries receiv- ing basic assistance, who account for 22.3 percent of TANF outlays. The Trump Administration proposed a Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) rule to “increase program integrity and reduce fraud, waste, and abuse” that would have prevented an individual from qualifying for SNAP simply because he or she received a pamphlet from the TANF program.60 This rule defined non-cash benefits as those that are worth at least $50 a month and received for at least six months. The tenets of this rule should be applied to the TANF program as well. This defi- nitional change would apply the TANF work requirements to any noncash benefit worth $50 a month and received for six consecutive months. To increase transparency, HHS should clarify how states, in their quarterly and annual reports, ought to track and audit the outcomes from how they spend TANF funds to meet the TANF program’s four statutory purposes. Additionally, TANF priorities are not implemented in an equally weighted way. Marriage, healthy family formation, and delaying sex to prevent pregnancy are virtually ignored in terms of priorities, yet these goals can reverse the cycle of poverty in meaningful ways. CMS should require explicit measurement of these goals. — 477 — Department of Health and Human Services Teen Pregnancy Prevention (TPP) and Personal Responsibility Educa- tion Program (PREP). TPP is operated by the Office of Population Affairs in the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health; PREP is operated by the ACF Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation. Both programs should ensure that there is better reporting of subgrantees and referral lists so that they do not promote abortion or high-risk sexual behavior among adolescents. CMS should ensure that Sexual Risk Avoidance (SRA) proponents receive these grants and are given every opportunity to prove their effectiveness. SRA programs, both at ACF and at OASH and both discretionary and mandatory, should be equal in funding and emphasis. Qualitative research should be conducted on both types of programs to ensure continuous improvement. In addition, certain provisions should be employed so that these programs do not serve as advocacy tools to promote sex, promote prostitution, or provide a funnel effect for abortion facilities and school field trips to clinics, or for similar purposes. Parent involvement and parent–child communication should be encour- aged and be a part of any funded project. Risk avoidance should be prioritized, and any program that submits a proposal that promotes risk rather than health should not be eligible for funding. Site visits should be revamped to ensure adherence to these optimal health met- rics, and a cost analysis of programming as compared to students served should be a metric in funding (taking into account that in certain cases, intensive programs will serve fewer students and can have more positive results). These same param- eters should apply to sex education programs at ACF. Any lists with “approved curriculum” or so-called evidence-based lists should be abolished; HHS should not create a monopoly of curriculum, adding to the profit of certain publishers. Furthermore, lists created in the past have given priority to sex-promotion text- books. HHS should create a list of criteria for evaluating the sort of curriculum that should be selected for any sex education grant programs, both at OASH and at ACF, with the aim of promoting optimal health and adhering to the legislative language of each program. Adoption Reform. There are roughly 400,000 children across the nation on the waiting list for foster care and 100,000 awaiting adoptive families, and the opioid/ fentanyl crisis is putting more at risk every day. Unfortunately, many of the faith- based adoption agencies that serve these children are under threat from lawsuits, or else their licenses and contracts have been halted because they cannot in good conscience place children in every household due to their religious belief that a child should have a married mother and father. HHS, through ACF and the Assistant Secretary for Financial Resources (ASFR), should repeal the unnecessary 2016 regulation61 that imposes nonstatutory sexual orientation and gender identity nondiscrimination conditions on agency grants and return to the policy of maximizing the options for placing vulnerable children

Department of Agriculture

Weak

Vector: 61%

Pages: 335-337AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill promotes awareness and support for the Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP), which provides meals to vulnerable populations, while Project 2025 seeks to restrict and reform federal school meal programs like NSLP and SBP, opposing expansions and advocating for need-based eligibility only. Although both relate to USDA nutrition programs, their objectives are opposed: one aims to increase program visibility and support, the other to reduce scope and prevent perceived waste."

Key themes:Child nutrition programsUSDA food assistanceFederal meal programsProgram eligibilityNutrition for vulnerable populations

— 303 — Department of Agriculture Accountability Office said results in the USDA not “regularly assess[ing] the pro- grams’ fraud risks,” the NSLP wasted nearly $500 million in FY 2021.89 The SBP now wastes nearly $200 million annually.90 Despite the ongoing effort to expand school meals under CEP and the evidence of waste and inefficiency, left-of-center Members of Congress and President Biden’s Administration have nonetheless proposed further expansions to extend federal school meals to include every K–12 student—regardless of need.91 The Administra- tion recently proposed expanding federal school meal programs offered during the school year to be offered during the summer as part of the “American Families Plan,” and also proposed expanding CEP. Other federal officials, including Senator Bernie Sanders (I–VT), have, in recent years, proposed expanding the NSLP to all students.92 To serve students in need and prevent the misuse of taxpayer money, the next Administration should focus on students in need and reject efforts to transform federal school meals into an entitlement program. Specifically, the next Administration should: l Promulgate a rule properly interpreting CEP. The USDA should issue a rule that clarifies that only an individual school or a school district as a whole, not a subset of schools within a district, must meet the 40-percent criteria to be eligible for CEP. Education officials should be prohibited from grouping schools together. l Work with lawmakers to eliminate CEP. The NSLP and SBP should be directed to serve children in need, not become an entitlement for students from middle- and upper-income homes. Congress should eliminate CEP. Further, the USDA should not provide meals to students during the summer unless students are taking summer-school classes. Currently, students can get meals from schools even if they are not in summer school, which has, in effect, turned school meals into a federal catering program.93 l Restore programs to their original intent and reject efforts to create universal free school meals. The USDA should work with lawmakers to restore NSLP and SBP to their original goal of providing food to K–12 students who otherwise would not have food to eat while at school. Federal school meals should be focused on children in need, and any efforts to expand student eligibility for federal school meals to include all K–12 students should be soundly rejected. Such expansion would allow an inefficient, wasteful program to grow, magnifying the amount of wasted taxpayer resources. Reform Conservation Programs. Farmers, in general, are excellent stewards of the land, if not for moral or ethical considerations, then out of self-interest to — 304 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise make sure their land and—by extension, their livelihoods—remain intact. Farmers are often called the original conservationists.94 When evaluating federal conservation programs, it is important to remember the importance of the land to farmers. In terms of USDA federal conservation programs, both the USDA’s Farm Service Agency (FSA) and Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) oversee numerous programs.95 As a general matter, the next Administration should ensure that these programs address genuine and specific environmental concerns with a focus on currently existing environmental problems, not those that are speculative in nature. These conservation programs should have clearly identifiable goals, with the success or failure of these programs being directly measurable. Any assistance to farmers to take specific actions should not be provided unless the assistance will directly and clearly help to address a specific environmental problem. Further, any assistance to encourage farmers to engage in certain practices should only be provided if farmers would not have adopted the practices in the first place. There are specific issues that the next Administration should address. The Conservation Reserve Program,96 which is run by FSA, pays farmers to not farm some of their land. This program has recently received attention, as agricultural groups rightfully seek to farm without penalty voluntarily idled land, in light of the consequences to food prices of Russia invading Ukraine.97 There is also a need to reform USDA’s conservation easements. These easements are a powerful tool to incentivize long-term preservation of ecosystems while still allowing farmers to benefit economically. However, when farmers and ranchers sign conservation easements with the USDA, they can be enforced in perpetuity. Future generations, be they the descendants of the landowner or new residents, are bound by those conditions. Ecosystems and topography naturally change over time, but without legislative change, easement requirements will not. The next Administration should: l Champion the elimination of the Conservation Reserve Program. Farmers should not be paid in such a sweeping way not to farm their land. If there is a desire to ensure that extremely sensitive land is not farmed, this should be addressed through targeted efforts that are clearly connected to addressing a specific and concrete environmental harm. The USDA should work with Congress to eliminate this overbroad program. l Reform NRCS wetlands and erodible land compliance and appeals. Problematic NRCS overreach could be avoided entirely by removing its authority to prescribe specific practices on a particular farm operation in order to ensure continued eligibility to participate in USDA farm programs,

Department of Health and Human Services

Weak

Vector: 60%

Pages: 509-511AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill raises awareness for the CACFP nutrition program, while the Project 2025 excerpt focuses on TANF work requirements, accountability, and marriage/family formation goals; they share only a tangential concern for low‑income families and child well‑being."

Key themes:low-income familieschild welfarenutrition assistancehealth outcomesstate flexibility

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. Boozman, John

Digital Commodity Intermediaries Act

119/s/3755

Veteran Burial Timeliness and Death Certificate Accountability Act

119/s/2309

An original bill to require the Secretary of Agriculture to convey a parcel of property of the Forest Service to Perry County, Arkansas, and for other purposes.

119/s/3095

Back to All Bills