To amend the Public Health Service Act to reauthorize the Stop, Observe, Ask, and Respond to Health and Wellness Training Program.

— 309 — Department of Agriculture Eliminate or Reform the Dietary Guidelines. The USDA, in collaboration with HHS, publishes the Dietary Guidelines every five years.125 For more than 40 years, the federal government has been releasing Dietary Guidelines,126 and during this time, there has been constant controversy due to questionable recommenda- tions and claims regarding the politicization of the process. In the 2015 Dietary Guidelines process, the influential Dietary Guidelines Advi- sory Committee veered off mission and attempted to persuade the USDA and HHS to adopt nutritional advice that focused not just on human health, but the health of the planet.127 Issues such as climate change and sustainability infiltrated the process. Fortunately, the 2020 process did not get diverted in this manner. How- ever, the Dietary Guidelines remain a potential tool to influence dietary choices to achieve objectives unrelated to the nutritional and dietary well-being of Americans. There is no shortage of private sector dietary advice for the public, and nutrition and dietary choices are best left to individuals to address their personal needs. This includes working with their own health professionals. As it is, there is constantly changing advice provided by the government, with insufficient qualifications on the advice, oversimplification to the point of miscommunicating important points, questionable use of science, and potential political influence. The Dietary Guidelines have a major impact because they not only can influence how private health providers offer nutritional advice, but they also inform federal programs. School meals are required to be consistent with the guidelines.128 The next Administration should: l Work with lawmakers to repeal the Dietary Guidelines. The USDA should help lead an effort to repeal the Dietary Guidelines. l Minimally, the next Administration should reform the Dietary Guidelines. The USDA, with HHS, should develop a more transparent process that properly considers the underlying science and does not overstate its findings. It should also ensure that the Dietary Guidelines focus on nutritional issues and do not veer off-mission by focusing on unrelated issues, such as the environment, that have nothing to do with nutritional advice. In fact, if environmental concerns supersede or water down recommendations for human nutritional advice, the public would be receiving misleading health information. The USDA, working with lawmakers, should codify these reforms into law. ORGANIZATIONAL ISSUES Based on the recommended reforms identified as ideal solutions, the USDA would look different in many respects. One of the biggest changes would be a USDA that is not focused on welfare, given that means-tested welfare programs would — 310 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise be moved to HHS. The Food and Nutrition Service that administers the food and nutrition programs would be eliminated. The Farm Service Agency, which administers many of the farm subsidy pro- grams, would be significantly smaller in size if the ideal farm subsidy reforms were adopted. Most important, a conservative USDA, as envisioned, would not be used as a governmental tool to transform the nation’s food system, but instead would respect the importance of efficient agricultural production and ensure that the government does not hinder farmers and ranchers from producing an abundant supply of safe and affordable food. For a conservative USDA to become a reality, and for it to stay on course with the mission as outlined, the White House must strongly support these reforms and install strong USDA leaders. These individuals almost certainly will be faced with opposition from some in the agricultural community who would fight changing subsidies in any fashion, although many of the reforms would likely be embraced by those in agriculture. There would be strong opposition from environmental groups and others who want the federal government to transform American agriculture to meet their ideo- logical objectives. Finally, there would be opposition from left-of-center groups who do not want to reform SNAP and would expand welfare and dependency—such as through universal free school meals—as opposed to reducing dependency. Reducing the scope of government and promoting individual freedom may not always be easy, but it is something that conservatives regularly should strive for. The listed reforms to the U.S. Department of Agriculture would help to accom- plish these objectives and are well worth fighting for to achieve a freer and more prosperous nation. CONCLUSION This chapter started with a discussion of the incredible success of American farmers and American agriculture in general. This is how the chapter should close as well. Americans are blessed with an agricultural sector, and a food system in general, which are worthy of incredible respect. A conservative USDA should appreciate this while recognizing that its role is to serve the interests of all Amer- icans, not special interests. By being a champion of unleashing the potential of American agriculture, a conservative USDA would help to ensure a future with an abundant supply of safe and affordable food for individuals and families in the United States and across the globe. AUTHOR’S NOTE: The author would like to thank all the contributors for their assistance, expertise, and insight into the development of this chapter. In addition, special thanks are due to Rachael Wilfong, who was instrumental in getting the chapter ready for submission.

— 612 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Alternative View. Some conservatives believe that temporary worker programs help to fill jobs that Americans will not fill, prevent illegal immigration by giving farmers and others who hire low-skilled labor access to workers, and keep down the prices of food and other products and services produced by the temporary workers. Some credibly argue that, absent the H-2A program, many farmers would have to drastically increase wages, raising the price of food for all Americans, and that even such wage increases may not be sufficient to attract enough temporary American workers to complete the necessary farm tasks to get food products to market since those jobs are, by their nature, seasonal. Those who share this view argue that any plan to phase out the program should weigh the program’s current costs (relatively low) and the program’s current benefits (makes American farming more profitable and sustainable while keeping down food costs). l Phase out the H-2B visa program. The H-2B visa, for nonagricultural seasonal workers, suffers from many of the same harms and abuses as H-2A, albeit of lesser scope because of its cap and distribution across many sectors. Congress should immediately cap this program at its current levels and establish a schedule for its gradual and predictable phasedown over no more than 10 years. Alternative View. As with the H-2A program, some conservatives see the H-2B program as a valuable program that provides low-cost temporary workers in jobs that American companies, by and large, cannot find enough American workers to fill (e.g., tourist season childcare providers at ski resorts, swimming instructors at summer camps, housekeepers and groundskeepers at amusement parks, and extra summer cooks at restaurants that serve national park patrons).These seasonal jobs are less desirable to Americans who predominantly prefer year-round work. Labor shortages after the pandemic support this belief. Absent the H-2B program, many of these seasonal businesses would be forced to cut their hours or even close altogether. Any plan to phase out the program should weigh the program's current costs (relatively low) and the program’s current benefits (makes seasonal business more feasible). Hire American Requirements. When government purchases goods or ser- vices, if at all possible, not only should the company be an American company and the products be manufactured in America, but the companies should also be encouraged to hire American workers. Likewise, private employers should be free to prefer our own countrymen. l Congress should mandate that all new federal contracts require at least 70 percent of the contractor’s employees to be U.S. citizens, with the percentage increasing to at least 95 percent over a 10-year period.

— 612 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Alternative View. Some conservatives believe that temporary worker programs help to fill jobs that Americans will not fill, prevent illegal immigration by giving farmers and others who hire low-skilled labor access to workers, and keep down the prices of food and other products and services produced by the temporary workers. Some credibly argue that, absent the H-2A program, many farmers would have to drastically increase wages, raising the price of food for all Americans, and that even such wage increases may not be sufficient to attract enough temporary American workers to complete the necessary farm tasks to get food products to market since those jobs are, by their nature, seasonal. Those who share this view argue that any plan to phase out the program should weigh the program’s current costs (relatively low) and the program’s current benefits (makes American farming more profitable and sustainable while keeping down food costs). l Phase out the H-2B visa program. The H-2B visa, for nonagricultural seasonal workers, suffers from many of the same harms and abuses as H-2A, albeit of lesser scope because of its cap and distribution across many sectors. Congress should immediately cap this program at its current levels and establish a schedule for its gradual and predictable phasedown over no more than 10 years. Alternative View. As with the H-2A program, some conservatives see the H-2B program as a valuable program that provides low-cost temporary workers in jobs that American companies, by and large, cannot find enough American workers to fill (e.g., tourist season childcare providers at ski resorts, swimming instructors at summer camps, housekeepers and groundskeepers at amusement parks, and extra summer cooks at restaurants that serve national park patrons).These seasonal jobs are less desirable to Americans who predominantly prefer year-round work. Labor shortages after the pandemic support this belief. Absent the H-2B program, many of these seasonal businesses would be forced to cut their hours or even close altogether. Any plan to phase out the program should weigh the program's current costs (relatively low) and the program’s current benefits (makes seasonal business more feasible). Hire American Requirements. When government purchases goods or ser- vices, if at all possible, not only should the company be an American company and the products be manufactured in America, but the companies should also be encouraged to hire American workers. Likewise, private employers should be free to prefer our own countrymen. l Congress should mandate that all new federal contracts require at least 70 percent of the contractor’s employees to be U.S. citizens, with the percentage increasing to at least 95 percent over a 10-year period. — 613 — Department of Labor and Related Agencies l Congress must amend the law so that employers can again have the freedom to make hiring Americans a priority. Despite the significant advantages that preferring citizens over (work-authorized) aliens in hiring would provide to American workers, businesses, and the country at large, such a practice has been illegal since 1986.25 This makes no sense. Alternative View Some conservatives believe that the government has a duty to limit its spending in order to limit how much it takes from American families. This means that when the government spends money, it must find the most econom- ical and effective way to do so. Excessive government spending will be borne by American workers and families through reduced incomes and purchasing power. There may be good reasons to require a certain percentage of American workers on federal contracts, but those decisions should be based on economy and efficiency as opposed to arbitrary quotas. Visa Fraud. American businesses that commit visa fraud and hire illegal immi- grants should not be the beneficiaries of federal spending. But a 2020 report by the Department of Labor’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) examined the depart- ment’s process for excluding employers who commit visa fraud and abuse from federal contracts and found much to be desired. l To protect the American workforce from unscrupulous immigration lawyers, employers, and labor brokers, the department must follow the recommendations of the OIG and institute more robust investigations for suspected visa fraud and speedier debarments for those found guilty. INTERNATIONAL LABOR POLICY Leveling the International Playing Field for Workers. As recent decades of intense import competition and offshoring have made clear, American workers suffer when the U.S. opens its markets to foreign nations’ minimal labor standards and exploitative conditions. While federal law already prohibits the importation of goods produced with forced labor, the prohibitions are toothless without effective means of enforcement and cover only the most basic of workers’ rights. The Trump Administration and its United States Trade Representative (USTR) took unprece- dented steps to redress the issue for workers. The U.S.–Mexico–Canada Agreement (USMCA) contained the strongest and most far-reaching labor provisions of any free trade agreement (FTA), with protections and commitments to reduce labor abuses and raise wages. It also established new modes of enforcement. For future FTAs, the USTR should replicate the labor provisions of USMCA, especially the provisions to: