Pacific Flyway Habitat Enhancement Act

Download PDF
Bill ID: 119/hr/1420
Last Updated: July 26, 2026

Sponsored by

Rep. LaMalfa, Doug [R-CA-1]

ID: L000578

Follow the money

The bill

Pacific Flyway Habitat Enhancement Act

HR. 1420, 119th Congress — read as touching Agribusiness.

The sponsor

Rep. LaMalfa, Doug [R-CA-1]

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

The money

$82,100 raised

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

The alignment

55% match to Project 2025

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

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

ASSUMING FIRST SPONSORSHIP - Mr. Gallagher asked unanimous consent that he may hereafter be considered as the first sponsor of H.R. 1420, a bill originally introduced by Representative LaMalfa, for the purpose of adding cosponsors and requesting reprintings pursuant to clause 7 of rule XII. Agreed to without objection.

July 15, 2026

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 House

🏛️

Senate Review

🎉

Passed Congress

🖊️

Presidential Action

⚖️

Became Law

📚 How does a bill become a law?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bill Summary

Another masterpiece of legislative theater, courtesy of the esteemed members of Congress. Let's dissect this farce, shall we?

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The Pacific Flyway Habitat Enhancement Act (HR 1420) claims to aim at conserving wetland habitats and promoting sustainable agriculture practices. How quaint. In reality, it's a thinly veiled attempt to line the pockets of special interest groups and agribusinesses while pretending to care about the environment.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends the Food Security Act of 1985 to allow for more agricultural lands to be enrolled in the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP). This program supposedly helps farmers conserve wetlands, but we all know it's just a clever way to funnel taxpayer dollars into the agriculture industry. The bill also introduces "Seasonally Flooded Working Lands Habitat Conservation Agreements," which is just a fancy name for "we're going to let farmers flood their fields and call it conservation."

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects are involved: agribusinesses, farm lobby groups, and the politicians who cater to them. The bill's sponsors, LaMalfa et al., are no doubt receiving generous campaign contributions from these interests. Meanwhile, the actual stakeholders – the environment, wildlife, and taxpayers – will be left to foot the bill for this greenwashing exercise.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a classic case of "environmental policy as corporate welfare." By allowing more agricultural lands to be enrolled in CREP, we can expect:

* Increased subsidies for agribusinesses * More water pollution and habitat destruction under the guise of "conservation" * A further concentration of land ownership among large corporations * Taxpayers footing the bill for this environmental charade

In short, HR 1420 is a masterclass in legislative doublespeak. It's a bill that says one thing but does another – all while lining the pockets of special interests and perpetuating the myth that our politicians care about the environment.

Diagnosis: Acute case of "Greenwashing-itis," a disease characterized by the misuse of environmental rhetoric to justify corporate handouts. Prognosis: More of the same old, same old – politicians pretending to care about the environment while serving their true masters: big business and special interests.

Related Topics

Water & Air Quality RegulationsPublic Lands & Natural ResourcesWildlife & Endangered Species
Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. LaMalfa, Doug [R-CA-1]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions
$82,100
24 donors
PACs
$0
Organizations
$11,100
Committees
$0
Individuals
$71,000

No PAC contributions found

1
CHEROKEE NATION
1 transaction
$3,300
2
AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS
1 transaction
$3,300
3
LEECH LAKE BAND OF OJIBWE
1 transaction
$2,000
4
VANN BROTHERS
1 transaction
$1,500
5
ONEIDA NATION
1 transaction
$1,000

No committee contributions found

1
SANTA ROSA RANCHERIA, .
1 transaction
$6,600
2
BURRESON, MARY JO
2 transactions
$6,600
3
NECHAY, JULIA
1 transaction
$5,000
4
OSAGE NATION, .
1 transaction
$3,300
5
MCLAUGHLIN, RANDY
1 transaction
$3,300
6
CHOCTAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA, .
1 transaction
$3,300
7
BURRESON, DENNIS
1 transaction
$3,300
8
ETCHEPARE, ALLEN
1 transaction
$3,300
9
FENN, JOMARIE
1 transaction
$3,300
10
KISLYANKA, VIKTORIYA
1 transaction
$3,300
11
KISLYANKA, VLADIMIR
1 transaction
$3,300
12
KOEHNEN, KALIN
1 transaction
$3,300
13
LAGRANDE, JULIE
1 transaction
$3,300
14
LAGRANDE, KM
1 transaction
$3,300
15
MONTNA, ALFRED
1 transaction
$3,300
16
RUE, MICHAEL
1 transaction
$3,300
17
WILBUR, RICHARD
1 transaction
$3,300
18
SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION IND, .
1 transaction
$3,300
19
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COM, .
1 transaction
$3,300

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 5 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Rep. Thompson, Mike [D-CA-4]

ID: T000460

Top Contributors

43

1
ACTBLUE
COMSOMERVILLE, MA
$500
Oct 27, 2024
2
ACTBLUE
COMSOMERVILLE, MA
$30
Nov 3, 2024
3
SHINGLE SPRINGS BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS
OrganizationSHINGLE SPRINGS, CA
$3,300
Sep 30, 2023
4
YOCHA DEHE WINTUN NATION
OrganizationBROOKS, CA
$3,300
Dec 22, 2023
5
YOCHA DEHE WINTUN NATION
OrganizationBROOKS, CA
$3,300
Dec 22, 2023
6
EASTERN BANK OF CHEROKEE INDIANS
OrganizationCHEROKEE, NC
$3,300
Feb 7, 2024
7
HABEMATOLEL POMO OF UPPER LAKE
OrganizationUPPER LAKE, CA
$3,300
Jun 23, 2024
8
FEDERATED INDIANS OF GRATON RANCHERIA
OrganizationROHNERT PARK, CA
$3,300
May 23, 2023
9
FEDERATED INDIANS OF GRATON RANCHERIA
OrganizationROHNERT PARK, CA
$3,300
May 23, 2023
10
MOORETOWN RANCHERIA
OrganizationOROVILLE, CA
$3,300
Sep 28, 2024

Rep. Valadao, David G. [R-CA-22]

ID: V000129

Top Contributors

47

1
CHEROKEE NATION
OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK
$3,300
Oct 23, 2024
2
EASTERN BAND OF CHEROKEE INDIANS
OrganizationCHEROKEE, NC
$3,300
Nov 5, 2024
3
SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationSANTA YNEZ, CA
$3,300
Dec 20, 2023
4
AK-CHIN INDIAN COMMUNITY
OrganizationMARICOPA, AZ
$3,300
Mar 31, 2023
5
MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationBANNING, CA
$3,300
Feb 28, 2024
6
SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationSANTA YNEZ, CA
$3,300
Feb 28, 2024
7
MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationBANNING, CA
$3,300
May 25, 2023
8
THE CHICKASAW NATION
OrganizationADA, OK
$3,300
Jun 29, 2024
9
MOORETOWN RANCHERIA
OrganizationOROVILLE, CA
$3,300
Sep 26, 2024
10
PECHANGA BAND OF LUISENO INDIANS
OrganizationTEMECULA, CA
$3,300
Aug 16, 2024

Rep. Panetta, Jimmy [D-CA-19]

ID: P000613

Top Contributors

28

1
ACROSS THE AISLE PAC
PACWASHINGTON, DC
$1,000
Jan 12, 2023
2
ACROSS THE AISLE PAC
PACWASHINGTON, DC
$500
Mar 23, 2023
3
FEDERATED INDIANS OF GRATON RANCHERIA
OrganizationROHNERT PARK, CA
$3,300
Apr 12, 2023
4
FEDERATED INDIANS OF GRATON RANCHERIA
OrganizationROHNERT PARK, CA
$3,300
Apr 12, 2023
5
MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationBANNING, CA
$3,300
Apr 12, 2023
6
EASTERN BAND OF CHEROKEE INDIANS
OrganizationCHEROKEE, NC
$3,300
Oct 16, 2024
7
SYCUAN BAND OF THE KUMEYAAY NATION
OrganizationEL CAJON, CA
$2,500
Nov 9, 2023
8
MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationBANNING, CA
$1,700
Apr 12, 2023
9
CROWN, LESTER
NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualCHICAGO, IL
$6,600
Aug 9, 2024
10
KIM, SOON
IndividualSANTA CRUZ, CA
$4,300
Sep 30, 2024

Rep. Costa, Jim [D-CA-21]

ID: C001059

Top Contributors

28

1
TABLE MOUNTAIN RANCHERIA
OrganizationFRIANT, CA
$3,300
Oct 30, 2023
2
EASTERN BAND OF CHEROKEE INDIANS
OrganizationCHEROKEE, NC
$3,300
Sep 18, 2024
3
JJF SP TRUST
OrganizationSAN FRANCISCO, CA
$3,300
Sep 30, 2024
4
SAN JOAQUIN RIVER RANCH
OrganizationFRESNO, CA
$3,300
Jun 30, 2023
5
SALT RIVER PIMA MARICOPA INDIAN COMMUNITY
OrganizationSCOTTSDALE, AZ
$1,000
Jul 31, 2023
6
MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationBANNING, CA
$1,000
Sep 8, 2023
7
SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationSANTA YNEZ, CA
$1,000
May 19, 2023
8
CHAPPELL-MCLULLAR TRUST
OrganizationHONOLULU, HI
$500
Mar 2, 2024
9
ARK, MANDEEP
SELF EMPLOYED • INTERPRETER
IndividualFRESNO, CA
$6,500
Aug 14, 2024
10
AFZAL, TEHMINA
SELF EMPLOYED • INTERPRETER
IndividualCHINO HILLS, CA
$6,500
Aug 14, 2024

Rep. Matsui, Doris O. [D-CA-7]

ID: M001163

Top Contributors

22

1
SOCIETY OF INTERVENTIONAL RADIOLOGY POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE
PACFAIRFAX, VA
$2,500
Feb 7, 2023
2
MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationBANNING, CA
$2,000
Mar 10, 2023
3
KINNEY, MARY
MGK STYLE • STYLIST/CEO
IndividualSACRAMENTO, CA
$3,300
Oct 30, 2024
4
KONG, MINDY
N/A • HOMEMAKER
IndividualSACRAMENTO, CA
$3,300
Oct 25, 2024
5
TSAKOPOULOS, KATINA
SELF-EMPLOYED • SOMATIC EXPERIENCING PRACTITIONER
IndividualRANCHO SANTA FE, CA
$3,300
Nov 1, 2024
6
TSAKOPOULOS, SOFIA
N/A • HOMEMAKER
IndividualSACRAMENTO, CA
$3,300
Nov 1, 2024
7
VISMARA, LOUIS A.
IndividualSACRAMENTO, CA
$3,300
Nov 1, 2024
8
WAGNER, BELAN KIRK
WAGNER KIRKMAN BLAINE KLOMPARENS • ATTORNEY
IndividualMATHER, CA
$3,300
May 30, 2023
9
KELLEY, LARRY D.
MCCLELLAN PARK • REAL ESTATE
IndividualMCCLELLAN, CA
$3,300
May 11, 2023
10
FRIEDMAN, MARK L.
FULCRUM PROPERTY GROUP • REAL ESTATE DEVELOPER
IndividualSACRAMENTO, CA
$3,300
Jun 14, 2023

Donor Network - Rep. LaMalfa, Doug [R-CA-1]

PACs
Organizations
Individuals
Politicians

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

Loading...

Showing 45 nodes and 42 connections

Total contributions: $42

Top Donors - Rep. LaMalfa, Doug [R-CA-1]

Showing top 24 donors by contribution amount

5 Orgs19 Individuals

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 2 helped.

  • +Agribusinessconfidence 0.80

    Section 2 of the bill amends the Food Security Act of 1985 to allow for additional agricultural lands to be enrolled under the conservation reserve enhancement program, which could provide financial benefits to agribusiness companies through rental payments and habitat conservation agreements.

  • +Crop Producersconfidence 0.80

    Section 2(f)(1)(A) of the bill allows for the enrollment of other agricultural land that is not eligible land on which resource concerns can be addressed, potentially benefiting crop producers who can participate in these conservation programs.

Project 2025 Policy Matches

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

Environmental Protection Agency

Weak
Vector: 64%
Pages: 458-460AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill centers on USDA conservation programs to enhance wetland habitat, while Project 2025's EPA section focuses on reducing EPA regulatory authority and reforming air quality rules; they share only a general environmental stewardship theme but differ in mechanisms and objectives."

Key themes:environmental stewardshipwetland habitatconservation programs

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

Department of Agriculture

Weak
Vector: 63%
Pages: 347-349AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on expanding conservation programs for wetland habitat, while Project 2025's Agriculture section criticizes federal conservation programs like CRP as overreach and advocates for their elimination to increase food production. The bill's goals conflict with Project 2025's preference for reducing federal land use restrictions and supporting farmer autonomy over conservation mandates."

Key themes:Conservation Reserve Programwetland conservationagricultural land use

— 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).

Environmental Protection Agency

Weak
Vector: 62%
Pages: 458-460AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on wetland habitat conservation through agricultural land enrollment, while the Project 2025 EPA section emphasizes air quality, greenhouse gas regulations, and limiting EPA authority—there is minimal thematic overlap between wetland conservation and the EPA-specific deregulatory goals outlined."

Key themes:environmental policyregulatory reform

— 425 — Environmental Protection Agency are statutorily required, and remove any regulatory differences between attainment and maintenance that are not explicitly required by law. l Streamline the process for state and local governments to demonstrate that their federally funded highway projects will not interfere with NAAQS attainment. l Adopt policies to prevent abuse of EPA’s CAA “error correction” authority.20 EPA historically has used this to coerce states into adopting its favored policies on pain of imposition of a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP). l Limit EPA’s reliance on CAA § 30121 general rulemaking authority to ensure that it is not abused to issue regulations for which EPA lacks substantive authority elsewhere in the statute. l If possible, return the standard-setting role to Congress. Climate Change l Remove the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP) for any source category that is not currently being regulated. The overall reporting program imposes significant burdens on small businesses and companies that are not being regulated. This is either a pointless burden or a sword-of- Damocles threat of future regulation, neither of which is appropriate. l Establish a system, with an appropriate deadline, to update the 2009 endangerment finding. l Establish a significant emissions rate (SER) for greenhouse gasses (GHGs). Regulating Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) Under the American Innovation and Manufacturing (AIM) Act22 l Repeal Biden Administration implementing regulations for the AIM Act that are unnecessarily stringent and costly. l Refrain from granting petitions from opportunistic manufacturers to add new restrictions that further skew the market toward costlier refrigerants and equipment.

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.

Full Policy Text

Related Bills