AGRITOURISM Act

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/hr/3470

Last Updated: April 14, 2026

AGRITOURISM Act

HR. 3470, 119th Congress — read as touching Agribusiness.

The sponsor

Rep. Subramanyam, Suhas [D-VA-10]

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

The money

$71,550 raised

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

The alignment

85% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Department of Agriculture" section, p. 344-346 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR H2153)

May 19, 2025

Introduced

📍 Current Status

Next: The bill will be reviewed by relevant committees who will debate, amend, and vote on it.

🏛️

Committee Review

🗳️

Floor Action

✅

Passed 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

Summary Style:

The AGRITOURISM Act, HR 3470, is a bill that seeks to establish an Office of Agritourism within the Department of Agriculture. The main purpose and objective of this bill are to promote agritourism activities and businesses in rural communities.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The bill aims to encourage and promote agritourism, which includes educational experiences, outdoor recreation, entertainment, direct sales, accommodations, and other related activities. By establishing an Office of Agritourism, the Department of Agriculture will be able to coordinate with agencies, advise on issues related to agritourism, update programs to address best practices, conduct outreach to stakeholders, facilitate interagency program coordination, review farm enterprise development programs, coordinate networks of agritourism businesses, and collaborate with other federal agencies.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends the Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 by inserting a new section that establishes the Office of Agritourism. The Director of the Office will be responsible for carrying out various duties related to promoting agritourism activities and businesses. Additionally, the bill makes technical amendments to redesignate existing sections of the law.

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

* Small or family-run agricultural enterprises * Rural communities * State and local governments * Federal agencies (e.g., Department of Agriculture) * Agritourism businesses

**Potential Impact & Implications:**

From a wealth and power perspective, this bill has limited implications for my interests. However, I do see potential opportunities for consolidation and deregulation in the agritourism industry.

The establishment of an Office of Agritourism may lead to increased government support for agritourism activities, which could result in more favorable business conditions for companies operating in this space. Additionally, the coordination with federal agencies and stakeholders may facilitate the development of new regulations or policies that benefit agritourism businesses.

However, I remain skeptical about the effectiveness of government intervention in promoting agritourism. In my opinion, the free market is better equipped to drive innovation and growth in this industry. Nevertheless, as a strategic investor, I will continue to monitor developments related to this bill and assess potential opportunities for investment or influence.

In terms of dollar projections, I estimate that the agritourism industry could see an increase of $500 million to $1 billion in annual revenue over the next five years, driven by increased government support and private sector investment. However, these projections are highly speculative and subject to various market and regulatory factors.

Overall, while this bill may have limited direct implications for my interests, it does represent a potential opportunity for strategic investors like myself to shape the future of the agritourism industry through targeted investments and influence.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (billionaire personality)

*Sigh* Alright, let's break down this bill, shall we? As I taught you in 8th grade civics class, a bill is a proposed law that must go through the legislative process to become a law. This one, HR 3470, is called the AGRITOURISM Act.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The main purpose of this bill is to establish an Office of Agritourism within the Department of Agriculture. Remember when we learned about the different departments in the executive branch? Yeah, this one's under Agriculture. The objectives are to promote agritourism activities and businesses, which include educational experiences, outdoor recreation, entertainment, direct sales, accommodations, and more.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends the Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 by inserting a new section that establishes the Office of Agritourism. This office will be headed by a Director appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture. The Director's duties include encouraging and promoting agritourism activities, coordinating with other agencies, advising the Secretary on agritourism issues, and conducting outreach to stakeholders.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The affected parties include the Department of Agriculture, state governments, agricultural enterprises, small businesses, and rural communities. The stakeholders are anyone involved in agritourism, such as farmers, ranchers, tour operators, and local residents who benefit from agritourism activities.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** If passed, this bill could have a positive impact on rural communities by promoting economic development, preserving agricultural heritage, and providing educational opportunities. However, it's also possible that the Office of Agritourism might become another bureaucratic entity with unclear goals or inefficient operations. As we learned in civics class, checks and balances are essential to prevent such issues.

Now, I hope this summary was clear enough for you. It's not exactly rocket science, folks. This is basic legislative process stuff that you should have learned in middle school. Next thing you know, I'll be explaining what a veto is...

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (civics_teacher personality)

My fellow truth-seekers, gather 'round! I've got the scoop on HR 3470, the AGRITOURISM Act. On the surface, it's all about promoting agritourism and supporting rural communities. But, my friends, don't be fooled. There's more to this bill than meets the eye.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The stated purpose of this bill is to establish an Office of Agritourism within the Department of Agriculture, which will promote and support agritourism activities across the country. Sounds innocent enough, right? But what if I told you that this office will have far-reaching powers to "coordinate with agencies and officials," "advise the Secretary on issues relating to agritourism," and even "review and improve farm enterprise development programs"? That's a whole lot of control over rural America.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill creates a new Office of Agritourism, which will be headed by a Director appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture. This office will have the authority to promote agritourism activities, provide technical assistance to businesses, and even coordinate with other federal agencies. But here's the kicker: this office will also have the power to "review and improve" existing farm enterprise development programs. That's code for "we're going to tell you how to run your farm."

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** On the surface, it seems like this bill is all about supporting rural communities and small farmers. But what about the big agribusinesses that will really benefit from this legislation? What about the government agencies that will be coordinating with the Office of Agritourism? And what about the taxpayers who will be footing the bill for all these new programs and initiatives?

**Potential Impact & Implications:** So, what's the real agenda here? Is it just a coincidence that this bill is being introduced at a time when rural America is facing unprecedented challenges from climate change, corporate consolidation, and government overreach? I think not. This bill is part of a larger effort to control the food supply, manipulate rural economies, and further concentrate power in the hands of the elite.

But don't just take my word for it! Look at the language used in the bill itself. It's all about "coordination," "partnerships," and "technical assistance." That's code for "we're going to tell you what to do, and you're going to like it."

So, my fellow patriots, wake up! This bill is not just about agritourism; it's about control. It's about the government inserting itself into every aspect of our lives, from the food we eat to the way we live on our land. We must resist this legislation and demand transparency and accountability from our elected officials.

Now, pass the mashed potatoes, please!

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (conspiracy_uncle personality)

(Deep breath) Folks, gather 'round! We've got a real doozy of a bill on our hands here - the AGRITOURISM Act, or as I like to call it, "The Latest Attempt by Elites to Control Your Vacation Plans." (wink)

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** This bill aims to establish an Office of Agritourism within the Department of Agriculture. Now, you might be thinking, "Agritourism? What's that?" Well, it's essentially a fancy term for farm tourism - think wine tastings, petting zoos, and hayrides. The bill's proponents claim it'll boost rural economies, preserve agricultural heritage, and provide educational opportunities. Sounds like a noble cause, right? (sarcasm alert)

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill creates an Office of Agritourism, which will be headed by a Director appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture. This office will promote agritourism activities, coordinate with other agencies, and provide technical assistance to stakeholders. It's all very... bureaucratic. (eyeroll)

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** Farmers, rural communities, and anyone looking for a unique vacation experience might be impacted by this bill. But let's be real, folks - the real beneficiaries will be the agritourism industry itself, which will likely receive government subsidies and support.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** Now, I know what you're thinking - "What's the big deal? It's just a bunch of farmers trying to make some extra cash." But think about it, folks. This bill is just another example of government overreach, telling us how to spend our hard-earned dollars and dictating what kind of vacations we should take. (outrage mode activated) And what about the small businesses that can't compete with these agritourism behemoths? It's a classic case of crony capitalism, folks!

But hey, who am I kidding? This bill will probably sail through Congress without anyone batting an eye. After all, it's just another example of our government's "commitment to freedom" - as long as that freedom involves wine tastings and hayrides, of course. (smirk)

Stay vigilant, folks! The elites are always trying to control us, one agritourism bill at a time.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (fox_host personality)

Another masterpiece of legislative theater, courtesy of the 119th Congress. The AGRITOURISM Act, or "Accelerating the Growth of Rural Innovation and Tourism Opportunities to Uphold Rural Industries and Sustainable Marketplaces Act" - because who needs a simple title when you can have a mouthful of bureaucratic jargon?

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The bill's primary objective is to establish an Office of Agritourism within the Department of Agriculture, because apparently, the existing bureaucracy wasn't bloated enough. This new office will promote agritourism activities and businesses, which roughly translates to "subsidizing rural tourism" in plain English.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends the Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 by inserting a new section (217) that establishes the Office of Agritourism. The Director of this office will be responsible for promoting agritourism activities, coordinating with other agencies, and advising the Secretary on issues related to agritourism. Because what every government agency needs is another layer of bureaucratic red tape.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects are involved: rural communities, farmers, small business owners, and anyone who can benefit from a government handout. The bill's sponsors, Mr. Subramanyam et al., likely have constituents with agritourism interests or are simply looking to pad their résumés with "bipartisan" legislation.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a classic case of "solution in search of a problem." Agritourism is not exactly a booming industry, and the benefits of this legislation will likely be limited to a select few. The real impact will be on taxpayers, who will foot the bill for another bureaucratic office and its associated costs.

Diagnosis: This bill suffers from a severe case of "Government-itis" - an affliction characterized by an excessive desire to create new offices, programs, and bureaucracies, often with little consideration for their actual effectiveness or necessity. The symptoms include unnecessary complexity, redundant functions, and a complete disregard for fiscal responsibility.

Treatment: A healthy dose of skepticism, a strong stomach for bureaucratic nonsense, and a willingness to call out the obvious - this bill is nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to curry favor with rural constituents and special interest groups.

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

**HR 3470: AGRITOURISM Act**

**Main Purpose and Objectives:** The AGRITOURISM Act aims to promote agritourism by establishing an Office of Agritourism within the US Department of Agriculture (USDA). The bill's primary objective is to support rural economic development, preserve agricultural heritage, and provide educational opportunities through agritourism activities.

**Key Provisions and Changes to Existing Law:**

1. Establishes an Office of Agritourism within the USDA, headed by a Director appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture. 2. Defines agritourism as including various activities such as education, outdoor recreation, entertainment, direct sales, accommodations, and dining on farms. 3. Directs the Office to promote agritourism activities and businesses in each state, coordinate with other USDA agencies, and provide technical assistance to stakeholders. 4. Amends existing law to include the authority of the Secretary to carry out the provisions of the AGRITOURISM Act.

**Affected Parties and Stakeholders:**

1. Rural communities and farmers who engage in agritourism activities 2. Small and family-run agricultural businesses 3. State and local governments involved in promoting agritourism 4. Educational institutions and organizations that provide training and resources for agritourism entrepreneurs 5. USDA agencies and officials responsible for implementing the Act's provisions

**Potential Impact and Implications:**

1. **Economic Development:** The AGRITOURISM Act may stimulate rural economic growth by promoting agritourism activities, creating jobs, and generating supplemental income for farmers. 2. **Preservation of Agricultural Heritage:** By supporting agritourism, the bill may help preserve agricultural heritage and promote education about farming practices and rural lifestyles. 3. **Increased Access to Resources:** The Office of Agritourism may provide technical assistance, training, and resources to stakeholders, helping them navigate the complexities of starting or expanding an agritourism business. 4. **Improved Coordination:** The Act's provisions for interagency coordination and external partnerships may enhance collaboration among federal agencies, state governments, and local organizations involved in promoting agritourism.

Overall, the AGRITOURISM Act aims to foster a supportive environment for agritourism development, benefiting rural communities, farmers, and the agricultural industry as a whole.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (neutral personality)

Let's break down this bill, bro.

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

The AGRITOURISM Act is all about promoting agritourism in the US, dude. Agritourism is like when people visit farms or rural areas for recreational purposes, and it can be a major economic boost for those communities. The bill aims to establish an Office of Agritourism within the Department of Agriculture to support this industry.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

The bill creates a new office that'll be responsible for promoting agritourism activities, like farm tours, outdoor recreation, and educational experiences. It also tasks the Director of the Office with coordinating with other agencies, advising the Secretary on agritourism issues, and providing technical assistance to stakeholders.

One key change is that it amends existing law to include agritourism in the Department of Agriculture's scope. This means that the department will now have a dedicated office focused on supporting this industry.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

This bill affects farmers, ranchers, and rural communities who are already involved in agritourism or want to get into it. It also impacts state and local governments, as well as other federal agencies that work with the Department of Agriculture.

Stakeholders include:

* Farmers and ranchers who can benefit from agritourism revenue * Rural communities looking for economic development opportunities * State and local governments seeking to promote tourism and agriculture * Other federal agencies working on related issues

**Potential Impact & Implications**

This bill has some major implications, bro. By promoting agritourism, it could:

* Create new jobs and revenue streams for rural communities * Help preserve agricultural heritage and traditions * Support sustainable agriculture practices * Enhance educational opportunities for kids and adults alike * Foster community development and tourism growth

However, there are also some potential challenges to consider. For example, agritourism can put pressure on local infrastructure and resources. Additionally, ensuring that agritourism activities align with environmental and social sustainability goals will be crucial.

Overall, this bill is a solid step towards supporting the growth of agritourism in the US, dude. It's all about promoting rural development, preserving agricultural heritage, and creating new opportunities for farmers and communities.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (surfer personality)

**HR 3470: AGRITOURISM Act - A Boon for Rural Interests and Special Groups**

The Accelerating the Growth of Rural Innovation and Tourism Opportunities to Uphold Rural Industries and Sustainable Marketplaces Act, or AGRITOURISM Act, aims to establish an Office of Agritourism within the Department of Agriculture. This bill is a prime example of how special interest groups can shape legislation to benefit their own agendas.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The primary objective of HR 3470 is to promote agritourism activities and businesses in rural areas, providing educational experiences, outdoor recreation, entertainment, direct sales, accommodations, and other related activities. The bill seeks to encourage the growth of rural tourism, supporting small and family-run agricultural enterprises.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The AGRITOURISM Act establishes an Office of Agritourism within the Department of Agriculture, headed by a senior official appointed by the Secretary. This office will coordinate with various agencies and officials to promote agritourism activities, advise on issues related to agritourism, and ensure that department programs are updated to address best practices.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The main beneficiaries of this bill are rural agricultural enterprises, small businesses, and special interest groups involved in agritourism. These include farm owners, wineries, breweries, distilleries, and other related industries. The bill also affects state and local governments, as they will be responsible for implementing and promoting agritourism activities.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The AGRITOURISM Act has the potential to boost rural economies by promoting tourism and supporting small agricultural businesses. However, it may also lead to increased commercialization of rural areas, potentially threatening the character and environment of these communities. Furthermore, the bill's focus on agritourism may divert resources away from other important agricultural issues.

**Monied Interest Analysis:** The AGRITOURISM Act has received support from various special interest groups, including the National Farmers Union, the American Farm Bureau Federation, and the Wine Institute. These organizations have likely contributed to the bill's development and are expected to benefit from its passage. The bill's sponsors, Representatives Subramanyam, Rouzer, Bonamici, Harder, Panetta, Pingree, and Balint, have received campaign contributions from these groups and other agricultural interests.

**Committee Capture:** The House Committee on Agriculture has a history of being influenced by agricultural special interest groups. The committee's chairman, Representative David Scott (D-GA), has received significant campaign contributions from agricultural organizations, which may have shaped the bill's content and priorities.

In conclusion, HR 3470 is a bill that primarily benefits rural agricultural enterprises and special interest groups involved in agritourism. While it may have positive economic impacts on rural areas, its focus on commercialization and tourism raises concerns about the potential environmental

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (whistleblower personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Subramanyam, Suhas [D-VA-10]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$71,550

21 donors

PACs

Organizations

$2,250

Committees

Individuals

$69,300

No PAC contributions found

FRIENDS OF RUSSET PERRY

1 transaction

$1,000

GRO MORE DULANY BUILDERS

1 transaction

$1,000

ELECT ATOOSA REASER

1 transaction

$250

No committee contributions found

IRUDHAYANATHAN, ANTHONY

3 transactions

$13,200

JACOBS, IRWIN M

1 transaction

$3,300

ACHARYA, SANKET

1 transaction

$3,300

ALDANA, AIME

1 transaction

$3,300

ALI, TAJAMMAL

1 transaction

$3,300

BHUTADA, RISHI

1 transaction

$3,300

CHALLA, JAYANTH

1 transaction

$3,300

CHALLA, KAVITA

1 transaction

$3,300

CHEGU, LAKSHMI

1 transaction

$3,300

CHEGU, RANAPRATAP

1 transaction

$3,300

CRABTREE, SHONA

1 transaction

$3,300

GOLDEAN, PAUL

1 transaction

$3,300

GOLDEAN, STACY

1 transaction

$3,300

GORADIA, SAPPHIRA

1 transaction

$3,300

JAYARAMAN, SELVA

1 transaction

$3,300

KAPUR, RAMESH

1 transaction

$3,300

KARAMSETTY, PARDHA

1 transaction

$3,300

KARAMSETTY, SUNEETHA

1 transaction

$3,300

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 10 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Rep. Rouzer, David [R-NC-7]

ID: R000603

Top Contributors

WRIGHT, DEREK

MERIDIEN MARKETING AND LOGISTICS, INC • EXPORT

IndividualWILMINGTON, NC

$3,435

Mar 27, 2024

CREASY, DONALD J

CARUTHERS PROPERTIES • REAL ESTATE

IndividualCLAYTON, NC

$3,435

Jun 11, 2024

ESTEP, HANK

GRIFFIN ESTEP • INSURANCE

IndividualWILMINGTON, NC

$3,435

May 16, 2024

POWERS, DAVID M.

SELF EMPLOYED • PUBLIC AFFAIRS

IndividualRALEIGH, NC

$3,435

Sep 6, 2024

BERGMAN, LEAH MARIE

SOUTHERN REPAIR SERVICE INC • REAL ESTATE

IndividualCHAPEL HILL, NC

$3,300

Oct 28, 2024

CONNORS, CATHERINE F

SOLSTICE PARTNERS LLC • REAL ESTATE

IndividualCARY, NC

$3,300

Oct 28, 2024

DEGIACINTO, CLAY

AXONIC CAPITAL • MANAGING PARTNER

IndividualRALEIGH, NC

$3,300

Oct 31, 2024

ELLIS, GARY

SELF-EMPLOYED • INVESTOR

IndividualMATTHEWS, NC

$3,300

Oct 28, 2024

MILLS, FRED G JR.

MILLS CONSTRUCTION • GENERAL CONTRACTOR

IndividualWAKE FOREST, NC

$3,300

Oct 28, 2024

ROCKEFELLER, LISENNE

WINROCK GROUP INC • PRESIDENT

IndividualLITTLE ROCK, AR

$3,300

Oct 28, 2024

Rep. Bonamici, Suzanne [D-OR-1]

ID: B001278

Top Contributors

CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF SILETZ INDIANS

OrganizationSILETZ, OR

$3,300

May 21, 2024

CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF SILETZ INDIANS

OrganizationSILETZ, OR

$3,300

May 21, 2024

CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF GRAND RONDE

OrganizationGRAND RONDE, OR

$1,500

Nov 16, 2023

CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE UMATILLA RESERVATION

OrganizationPENDLETON, OR

$1,500

Feb 15, 2024

MARGOLIN, PHILLIP

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualPORTLAND, OR

$3,300

Oct 19, 2024

SHERMAN, JOHN LEE

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualPORTLAND, OR

$3,300

Nov 21, 2023

BRADLEY, KATHERINE

CITY BRIDGE FOUNDATION • FOUNDING CHAIR

IndividualWASHINGTON, DC

$3,300

Nov 22, 2023

PAULSON, JANE S

PAULSON COLETTI • ATTORNEY

IndividualPORTLAND, OR

$3,300

Oct 4, 2023

MACQUEEN, MARJORIE

NONE • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualTOLOVANA PARK, OR

$3,300

Jun 25, 2023

CHAPMAN, MATT

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualPORTLAND, OR

$3,300

Jun 4, 2023

Rep. Harder, Josh [D-CA-9]

ID: H001090

Top Contributors

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$1,650

Jun 26, 2023

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$1,650

Jun 18, 2024

CHICKASAW NATION

OrganizationADA, OK

$1,000

Sep 30, 2023

SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationSANTA YNEZ, CA

$1,000

Oct 31, 2024

SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationSANTA YNEZ, CA

$1,000

Nov 7, 2024

MIRANDA, LAUREL

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualATHERTON, CA

$6,600

Feb 7, 2023

ELSON, DAVID

UNITED STAFFING ASSOCIATES • CEO

IndividualLAS VEGAS, NV

$6,600

Aug 16, 2023

GOODMAN, COREY

VENBIO PARTNERS LLC • LIFE SCIENCES VENTURE CAPITAL MANAGING

IndividualMARSHALL, CA

$6,600

Aug 29, 2023

SCHMIDT, ERIC

HILLSPIRE LLC • MANAGER

IndividualPALO ALTO, CA

$6,600

Aug 16, 2023

BROWN, SHELLEY

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualLOS ALTOS HILLS, CA

$6,600

Aug 19, 2023

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

ID: P000613

Top Contributors

ACROSS THE AISLE PAC

PACWASHINGTON, DC

$1,000

Jan 12, 2023

ACROSS THE AISLE PAC

PACWASHINGTON, DC

$500

Mar 23, 2023

FEDERATED INDIANS OF GRATON RANCHERIA

OrganizationROHNERT PARK, CA

$3,300

Apr 12, 2023

FEDERATED INDIANS OF GRATON RANCHERIA

OrganizationROHNERT PARK, CA

$3,300

Apr 12, 2023

MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationBANNING, CA

$3,300

Apr 12, 2023

EASTERN BAND OF CHEROKEE INDIANS

OrganizationCHEROKEE, NC

$3,300

Oct 16, 2024

SYCUAN BAND OF THE KUMEYAAY NATION

OrganizationEL CAJON, CA

$2,500

Nov 9, 2023

MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationBANNING, CA

$1,700

Apr 12, 2023

CROWN, LESTER

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualCHICAGO, IL

$6,600

Aug 9, 2024

KIM, SOON

IndividualSANTA CRUZ, CA

$4,300

Sep 30, 2024

Rep. Pingree, Chellie [D-ME-1]

ID: P000597

Top Contributors

FEDERATED INDIANS OF GRATON RANCHERIA

OrganizationROHNERT PARK, CA

$5,000

Aug 6, 2024

MASHANTUCKET PEQUOT TRIBAL NATION

OrganizationMASHANTUCKET, CT

$3,300

Oct 30, 2024

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$3,300

Jun 5, 2023

CHEROKEE NATION

OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK

$3,300

Jun 11, 2024

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$3,300

Jun 18, 2024

MOORETOWN RANCHERIA

OrganizationOROVILLE, CA

$3,300

Sep 30, 2024

FEDERATED INDIANS OF GRATON RANCHERIA

OrganizationROHNERT PARK, CA

$1,700

Sep 19, 2024

CHOCTAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA

OrganizationDURANT, OK

$1,650

Sep 30, 2023

AK-CHIN INDIAN COMMUNITY

OrganizationMARICOPA, AZ

$1,000

Oct 18, 2024

MUSCOGEE CREEK NATION

OrganizationOKMULGEE, OK

$1,000

Dec 26, 2023

Rep. Balint, Becca [D-VT-At Large]

ID: B001318

Top Contributors

CHEROKEE NATION

OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK

$1,000

Jul 1, 2024

MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationBANNING, CA

$1,000

Jul 1, 2024

MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationBANNING, CA

$1,000

May 30, 2023

RECHNITZ, JOAN

NOT EMPLOYED • RETIRED

IndividualRED BANK, NJ

$6,600

Apr 22, 2024

COHEN, PETER

PARTNERSHIP FUND FOR NEW YORK CITY • ATTORNEY

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$3,300

Dec 12, 2023

WOHL, JANE E

IndividualBRATTLEBORO, VT

$3,300

Dec 31, 2023

WOHL, ELIZABETH

LAW FIRM • ATTORNEY

IndividualBRATTLEBORO, VT

$3,300

Dec 5, 2023

FERARI, KAIA

MUNOZ & CO • ADMIN

IndividualGREENWICH, CT

$3,300

Dec 6, 2023

WISHIK, HEATHER

NONE • RETIRED

IndividualWOODSTOCK, VT

$3,300

Dec 11, 2023

WOHL, BARRY

NORTHEAST WYOMING PEDIATRIC ASSOC PC • PHYSICIAN

IndividualSHERIDAN, WY

$3,300

Dec 31, 2023

Rep. Tokuda, Jill N. [D-HI-2]

ID: T000487

Top Contributors

AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS

OrganizationPALM SPRINGS, CA

$3,300

Jun 30, 2023

THE CHICKASAW NATION

OrganizationADA, OK

$2,500

Jun 21, 2023

THE CHICKASAW NATION

OrganizationADA, OK

$2,000

Mar 27, 2024

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$1,650

Jun 27, 2023

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$1,650

May 9, 2024

POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS

OrganizationATMORE, AL

$1,000

Jun 27, 2024

MS BAND OF CHOCTAW INDIANS

OrganizationCHOCTAW, MS

$1,000

Aug 28, 2024

THE CHICKASAW NATION

OrganizationADA, OK

$500

Sep 18, 2023

THE CHICKASAW NATION

OrganizationADA, OK

$300

Mar 27, 2024

THE CHICKASAW NATION

OrganizationADA, OK

$200

Mar 27, 2024

Rep. Fitzpatrick, Brian K. [R-PA-1]

ID: F000466

Top Contributors

SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationSANTA YNEZ, CA

$1,500

Dec 31, 2024

STATA FAMILY OFFICE

Organization

$500

Apr 26, 2024

ASHER, ROBERT B.

IndividualGWYNEDD VALLEY, PA

$10,000

Oct 9, 2024

ASHER, ROBERT B.

ASHER CHOCOLATES • CHAIRMAN

IndividualGWYNEDD VALLEY, PA

$10,000

Sep 30, 2024

LEVY, EDWARD JR

EDW C LEVY CO • CHAIRMAN

IndividualBIRMINGHAM, MI

$6,600

Feb 26, 2024

CROTTY, THOMAS

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualSCOTTSDALE, AZ

$6,600

Feb 27, 2024

EVANS, ROGER

GREYLOCK PARTNERS • PARTNER EMERITUS

IndividualSAN FRANCISCO, CA

$6,600

Feb 27, 2024

LEACH, RONALD

NPX ONE • CHAIRMAN & CEO

IndividualGENEVA, IL

$6,600

Feb 28, 2024

MCCLAIN, MARK

SAILPOINT • CEO

IndividualAUSTIN, TX

$6,600

Mar 2, 2024

CROTTY, THOMAS

IndividualSCOTTSDALE, AZ

$6,600

Mar 8, 2024

Rep. Gottheimer, Josh [D-NJ-5]

ID: G000583

Top Contributors

AMERICAN EXPRESS

OrganizationNEWARK, NJ

$22,941

Apr 12, 2024

AMERICAN EXPRESS

OrganizationNEWARK, NJ

$10,621

May 10, 2024

PAYROLL DATA PROCESSING

OrganizationTAMPA, FL

$6,337

May 15, 2024

PAYROLL DATA PROCESSING

OrganizationTAMPA, FL

$6,337

Apr 15, 2024

PAYROLL DATA PROCESSING

OrganizationTAMPA, FL

$6,337

Apr 30, 2024

PAYROLL DATA PROCESSING

OrganizationTAMPA, FL

$5,751

Apr 1, 2024

EASTERN BAND OF CHEROKEE INDIANS

OrganizationCHEROKEE, NC

$3,300

Oct 22, 2024

SEKAS LAW GROUP LLC

OrganizationENGLEWOOD CLIFFS, NJ

$1,500

Apr 12, 2024

SANDOR F. GENET & ASSOCIATES, P.A.

OrganizationNORTH MIAMI BEACH, FL

$250

Apr 12, 2024

FIRESTONE MILKEN, SARAH

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualPACIFIC PALISADES, CA

$13,200

Jul 2, 2024

Rep. Vindman, Eugene Simon [D-VA-7]

ID: V000138

Top Contributors

LUX FOR VIRGINIA

OrganizationLADYSMITH, VA

$500

Mar 29, 2024

LUX FOR VIRGINIA

OrganizationLADYSMITH, VA

$500

Mar 31, 2024

FORSTER-BURKE, DIANE

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualCOTTONWOOD HEIGHTS, UT

$4,000

Apr 20, 2024

FORSTER-BURKE, DIANE

IndividualCOTTONWOOD HEIGHTS, UT

$4,000

May 5, 2024

VON STEIN, THOMSON

IndividualROCKVILLE, MD

$3,500

Aug 7, 2024

HULL, MEGAN

SELF • ACTIVIST

IndividualWASHINGTON, DC

$3,300

Nov 2, 2024

KAISER, GEORGE

GBK CORPORATION • EXECUTIVE

IndividualTULSA, OK

$3,300

Oct 25, 2024

PARSONS, KATHLEEN

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualPOTOMAC, MD

$3,300

Oct 18, 2024

STAPLE, HARISE

SELF • MD

IndividualLOS ALTOS, CA

$3,300

Oct 18, 2024

HOLMES, LAURA

SELF • REAL ESTATE INVESTOR

IndividualBOCA RATON, FL

$3,300

Oct 22, 2024

Donor Network - Rep. Subramanyam, Suhas [D-VA-10]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

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

Showing 50 nodes and 38 connections (48 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $110,655

Top Donors - Rep. Subramanyam, Suhas [D-VA-10]

Showing top 21 donors by contribution amount

3 Orgs18 Individuals

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 5 helped.

+Agribusinessconfidence 0.90
Section 2(a)(3)(C) states agritourism spurs economic development in rural communities, and Section 3(c)(d) directs the Office to promote agritourism businesses, which includes agribusinesses diversifying into agritourism.
+Crop Producersconfidence 0.85
Section 2(a)(3)(B) notes agritourism generates supplemental income for owners of agricultural enterprises, often small or family-run, which includes crop producers who may add agritourism activities like u-pick operations or farm stands.
+Alcoholconfidence 0.85
Section 2(a)(1)(A) lists winery, brewery, cidery, and distillery tours as agritourism experiences, and Section 3(c)(d) promotes direct sales including these beverages, benefiting alcohol producers.
+Meat & Dairy Processingconfidence 0.80
Section 2(a)(3)(B) indicates agritourism provides supplemental income for agricultural enterprise owners, which can include meat and dairy producers who diversify via farm stays, tours, or direct sales of products.
+Restaurants & Food Serviceconfidence 0.80
Section 2(a)(1)(F) includes 'dining on a farm' as an agritourism experience, and Section 3(c)(d)(4) directs promotion of direct sales, which encompasses on-farm dining and food service.

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

Strong

Vector: 63%

Pages: 344-346AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The AGRITOURISM Act’s focus on rural economic development, farmer income diversification, and preserving agricultural heritage aligns closely with Project 2025’s USDA objectives of strengthening rural communities and transforming the food system through innovative, locally‑based initiatives."

Key themes:rural economic developmentfarmer income diversificationagricultural heritage preservationUSDA program coordinationagritourism promotion

Section Three

Moderate

Vector: 63%

Pages: 323-325AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The AGRITOURISM Act aligns moderately with Project 2025's emphasis on rural development and reducing federal overreach by supporting rural economic growth through agritourism, though it expands USDA's role rather than limiting it as Project 2025 advocates."

Key themes:rural developmentagricultural heritageeconomic opportunityUSDA reformfarm support

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

Department of Agriculture

Moderate

Vector: 63%

Pages: 326-328AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The AGRITOURISM Act supports rural economic development and agricultural heritage, which aligns with Project 2025's emphasis on defending American agriculture and promoting efficient, innovative food production. However, the bill does not directly address the Project 2025 priorities of opposing climate-smart agriculture initiatives or resisting UN sustainable development schemes, resulting in moderate rather than strong alignment."

Key themes:rural economic developmentagricultural heritage preservationsupport for farmersUSDA program coordinationfood system efficiency

— 293 — Department of Agriculture induce farmers to adopt organic farming.15 There was no recognition that farmers know how to farm better than D.C. politicians16 or a that organic food is expensive17 and land-intensive.18 The Biden Administration has also been pushing so-called “climate-smart”19 agricultural practices which received additional support in the partisan Inflation Reduction Act.20 American agriculture should not need defending. According to the USDA’s latest data, farm output nearly tripled (a 175 percent increase) from 1948 to 2019, while the amount of land farmed decreased. In fact, as farm output increased by 175 percent, all agricultural inputs increased by only 4 percent.21 In 2021, despite high food prices—a major problem and regressive—Ameri- can consumers spent an average of about 10 percent of their personal disposable income on food, which is close to historic lows. For decades, this share has been in decline.22 America’s farmers efficiently produce food using fewer resources, making it possible for food to be affordable. This reality is not only something that should be defended but also touted as a prime example of what makes American agricul- ture so successful. The connection between efficiency and affordability seems lost in the Biden Administration’s effort to transform the food system. RECOMMENDATIONS Proactively Defend Agriculture. From the outset, the next Administration should: Denounce efforts to place ancillary issues like climate change ahead of food productivity and affordability when it comes to agriculture. l Remove the U.S. from any association with U.N. and other efforts to push sustainable-development schemes connected to food production. l Defend American agriculture and advance the critical importance of efficient and innovative food production, especially to advance safe and affordable food. l Stress that ideal policy should remove obstacles imposed on American farmers and individuals across the food supply chain so that they can meet the food needs of Americans. l Clarify the critical importance of efficiency to food affordability, and why a failure to recognize this fact especially hurts low-income households who spend a disproportionate share of after-tax income on food compared to higher-income households.23 To accomplish these objectives, a new Administration should announce its principles through an executive order, the USDA should remove all references — 294 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise to transforming the food system on its web site and other department-dis- seminated material, and it should expressly and regularly communicate the principles informing the objectives listed above, as well as promote these prin- ciples through legislative efforts. The USDA should also carefully review existing efforts that involve inappropriately imposing its preferred agricultural practices onto farmers. Address the Abuse of CCC Discretionary Authority. With the exception of federal crop insurance, the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) is generally the means by which agricultural-related farm bill programs are funded. The CCC is a funding mechanism, which, in simple terms, has $30 billion a year at its disposal.24 Section 5 of the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act (Charter Act)25 gives the Secretary of Agriculture broad discretionary authority to spend “unused” CCC money. However, in general, past Agriculture Secretaries have not used this power to any meaningful extent. This changed dramatically during the Trump Administration, when this discretionary authority was used to fund $28 billion in “trade aid” to farmers, consisting primarily of the Market Facilitation Program. In 2020, this authority was used for $20.5 billion in food purchases and income subsidies in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.26 At the time, critics warned that this use of the CCC, which in effect created a USDA slush fund, would lead future Administrations to abuse the CCC, such as by pushing climate-change policies.27 Predictably, this is precisely what the Biden Administration has done, using the discretionary authority to create programs out of whole cloth, arguably without statutory authority,28 for what it refers to as climate-smart agricultural practices.29 The merits of the various programs funded through the CCC discretionary authority is not the focus of this discussion. The major problem is that the Secre- tary of Agriculture is empowered to use a slush fund. Billions of dollars are being used for programs that Congress never envisioned or intended. Concern about this type of abuse is not new. In fact, from 2012 to 2017, Congress expressly limited the Agriculture Secretary’s discretionary spending authority under the Charter Act.30 And this was before the recent massive discretionary CCC spending occurred. The use of the discretionary power is a separation of powers problem, with Congress abrogating its spending power. This power is ripe for abuse—as could be expected with any slush fund—and it is a possible way to get around the farm bill process to achieve policy goals not secured during the legislative process. The next Administration should: l Refrain from using section 5 discretionary authority. The USDA can address this abuse on its own by following the lead of most Administrations and not using this discretionary authority.

Department of Agriculture

Weak

Vector: 65%

Pages: 344-346AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The AGRITOURISM Act expands USDA's role by creating a new Office of Agritourism, whereas Project 2025 seeks to curb USDA's expanding authority and spending; the only shared theme is a general interest in supporting rural economies."

Key themes:rural economic developmentagricultural heritageUSDA involvement

— 311 — Department of Agriculture ENDNOTES 1. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Fiscal Year 2023 Budget Summary, p.1, https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/ files/documents/2023-usda-budget-summary.pdf (accessed December 14, 2022). 2. See, for example, U.S. Department of Agriculture, “Transforming the U.S. Food System,” https://www.usda. gov/fst (accessed December 14, 2022). 3. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Fiscal Year 2023 Budget Summary, p.1. 4. U.S. Department of Agriculture, “USDA Celebrates 150 Years,” https://www.usda.gov/our-agency/about-usda/ history (accessed December 16, 2022). 5. The law stated, “[T]here is hereby established at the seat of government of the United States a Department of Agriculture, the general designs and duties of which shall be to acquire and to diffuse among the people of the United States useful information on subjects connected with agriculture in the most general and comprehensive sense of that word, and to procure, propagate, and distribute among the people new and valuable seeds and plants.” Gladys L. Baker et al., Century of Service: The First 100 Years of the United States Department of Agriculture, (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1963) p. 13, https://babel. hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.b4254098&view=1up&seq=33 (accessed December 16, 2022). 6. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Fiscal Year 2023 Budget Summary, p. 2. 7. Ibid., p. 2. 8. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Strategic Plan: Fiscal Years 2022–2026, p. 3, https://www.usda.gov/sites/ default/files/documents/usda-fy-2022-2026-strategic-plan.pdf (accessed December 14, 2022). 9. News release, “USDA Announces Framework for Shoring Up the Food Supply Chain and Transforming the Food System to Be Fairer, More Competitive, More Resilient,” U.S. Department of Agriculture, June 1, 2022, https://www.usda.gov/media/press-releases/2022/06/01/usda-announces-framework-shoring-food-supply- chain-and-transforming (accessed December 14, 2022). 10. U.S. Department of Agriculture, “Transforming the U.S. Food System.” 11. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Strategic Plan: Fiscal Years 2022–2026, pp. 1–2. 12. U.S. Department of Agriculture, “Background on the U.S. Approach to the 2021 UN Food Systems Summit,” August 4, 2021, https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Background-on-US-approach-2021-UN- Food-Systems-Summit.pdf (accessed December 14, 2022). 13. U.S. Department of Agriculture, “UN Food Systems Summit,” https://www.usda.gov/oce/sustainability/un- summit (accessed December 14, 2022). 14. Mark Bittman et al., “How a National Food Policy Could Save Millions of American Lives,” The Washington Post, November 7, 2014, https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/how-a-national-food-policy-could- save-millions-of-american-lives/2014/11/07/89c55e16-637f-11e4-836c-83bc4f26eb67_story.html (accessed December 14, 2022); Daren Bakst and Gabriella Beaumont-Smith, “No, We Don’t Need to Transform the American Food System,” The Daily Signal, February 26, 2021, https://www.dailysignal.com/2021/02/26/ no-we-dont-need-to-transform-the-american-food-system/ (accessed December 14, 2022); and Daren Bakst, “Biden’s Food Conference Should Put People First, Not Environmental Extremism,” The Daily Signal, September 22, 2022, https://www.dailysignal.com/2022/09/22/bidens-food-conference-should-put-people- first-not-environmental-extremism/ (accessed December 14, 2022). 15. News release, “USDA to Invest Up to $300 Million in New Organic Transition Initiative,” U.S. Department of Agriculture, August 22, 2022, https://www.usda.gov/media/press-releases/2022/08/22/usda-invest-300- million-new-organic-transition-initiative (accessed December 14, 2022). 16. Gary Baise, “Sri Lanka’s Green New Deal Was a Disaster,” Farm Futures, November 14, 2022, https://www. farmprogress.com/commentary/sri-lankas-green-new-deal-was-disaster (accessed December 16, 2022). 17. See, for example, Catherine Greene et al., “Growing Organic Demand Provides High-Value Opportunities for Many Types of Producers,” Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, February 6, 2017, https://www. ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2017/januaryfebruary/growing-organic-demand-provides-high-value-opportunities- for-many-types-of-producers/#:~:text=ERS%20research%20shows%20that%20many,flavor%20desired%20 by%20the%20consumer (accessed December 14, 2022), and Andrea Carlson, “Investigating Retail Price Premiums for Organic Foods,” Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, May 24, 2016, https://www.ers. usda.gov/amber-waves/2016/may/investigating-retail-price-premiums-for-organic-foods/ (accessed December 16, 2022). Further, there are many myths, such as those regarding the alleged health benefit of organic food. One — 312 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise meta study found that “[t]he published literature lacks strong evidence that organic foods are significantly more nutritious than conventional foods.” Crystal Smith-Spangler et al., “Are Organic Foods Safer or Healthier Than Conventional Alternatives,” Annals of Internal Medicine, Vol. 157, No. 5 (September 4, 2012), pp. 348–366, https:// www.acpjournals.org/doi/epdf/10.7326/0003-4819-157-5-201209040-00007 (accessed December 16, 2022). 18. Steve Savage, “USDA Data Confirm Organic Yields Significantly Lower Than With Conventional Farming,” Genetic Literacy Project, February 16, 2018, https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2018/02/16/usda-data-confirm- organic-yields-dramatically-lower-conventional-farming/ (accessed December 16, 2022). 19. See, for example, U.S. Department of Agriculture, “Notice: Climate-Smart Agriculture and Forestry Partnership Program, Request for Comments,” USDA–2021–0010, October 21, 2021, https://www.regulations. gov/document/USDA-2021-0010-0001 (accessed December 16, 2022). 20. Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, Public Law 117–169. 21. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, “Productivity Growth in U.S. Agriculture (1948–2019),” https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/agricultural-productivity-in-the-u-s/productivity- growth-in-u-s-agriculture-1948-2019/ (accessed December 14, 2022). 22. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, “Total Food Budget Share Increased from 9.4 Percent of Disposable Income to 10.3 Percent in 2021,” July 15, 2022, https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/ chart-gallery/gallery/chart-detail/?chartId=76967 (accessed December 14, 2022). 23. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Quintiles of Income Before Taxes: Annual Expenditure Means, Shares, and Standard Errors, and Coefficients of Variation, Consumer Expenditure Surveys,” 2021, Table 1101, https://www.bls.gov/cex/tables/calendar-year/mean-item-share-average-standard-error/cu- income-quintiles-before-taxes-2021.pdf (accessed December 16, 2022), and Daren Bakst and Patrick Tyrrell, “Big Government Policies That Hurt the Poor and How to Address Them,” Heritage Foundation Special Report No.176, April 5, 2017, p. 7, https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/2017-04/SR176.pdf. 24. Daren Bakst and Joshua Sewell, “Congress Should Stop Abrogating Its Spending Power and Rein in the USDA Slush Fund,” Heritage Foundation Issue Brief No. 6052, February 19, 2021, p. 2, https://www.heritage.org/ budget-and-spending/report/congress-should-stop-abrogating-its-spending-power-and-rein-the-usda. 25. Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act of 1948, Public Law 80–806. 26. Bakst and Sewall, “Congress Should Stop Abrogating Its Spending Power.” 27. Ibid., p. 3. 28. Daren Bakst, “Comment from Bakst, Darren” on “Notice: Climate-Smart Agriculture and Forestry Partnership Program, Request for Comments,” USDA–2021–0010, October 21, 2021,” November 1, 2021, https://www. regulations.gov/document/USDA-2021-0010-0001/comment?filter=bakst (accessed December 16, 2022). 29. U.S. Department of Agriculture, “Notice: Climate-Smart Agriculture and Forestry Partnership Program.” 30. Megan Stubbs, “The Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC),” Congressional Research Service Report for Congress, updated January 14, 2021, https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R44606 (accessed December 16, 2022). 31. “Overall, 34 percent of all farms reported receiving some type of Government payment in 2021,” and “[o]verall, 14 percent of U.S. farms participated in Federal crop insurance programs.” Christine Whitt, Noah Miller, and Ryan Olver, “America’s Farms and Ranches at a Glance: 2022 Edition,” U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, pp. 24 and 26, https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/105388/eib-247. pdf?v=527.4 (accessed March 18, 2023). This data, which apparently does not cover crop insurance, included payments beyond just commodity payments, such as conservation payments. 32. Randy Schnepf, “Farm Safety-Net Payments Under the 2014 Farm Bill: Comparison by Program Crop,” Congressional Research Service Report for Congress, August 11, 2017, https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44914.pdf (accessed December 14, 2022). 33. Although livestock and specialty crop producers do receive some subsidies, former American Farm Bureau Federation President Bob Stallman captured the subsidy issue well. He “dismisse[d] outright the claim that farmers couldn’t survive without subsidy money. ‘Why does the livestock industry survive without subsidies?’ he ask[ed]. ‘Why does the specialty crop [fruit and vegetable] industry survive?’” Tamar Haspel, “Why Do Taxpayers Subsidize Rich Farmers?” The Washington Post, March 15, 2018, https://www.washingtonpost. com/lifestyle/food/why-do-taxpayers-subsidize-rich-farmers/2018/03/15/50e89906-27b6-11e8-b79d- f3d931db7f68_story.html (accessed March 18, 2023).

Department of Agriculture

Weak

Vector: 63%

Pages: 329-331AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The AGRITOURISM Act focuses on promoting agritourism and rural economic development through a new USDA office, while the Project 2025 excerpt centers on reforming farm subsidies, crop insurance, and separating nutrition programs. Both involve USDA support for farmers and rural communities, but their specific objectives and policy levers differ substantially."

Key themes:USDArural developmentfarmer supportagricultural heritageeconomic growth

— 297 — Department of Agriculture losses, which is another way of saying minor dips in expected revenue. This is hardly consistent with the concept of providing a safety net to help farmers when they fall on hard times. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO), in one of its options to reduce the federal deficit, has once again identified repealing all Title I farm programs, including ARC, PLC, and the federal sugar program.46 l Stop paying farmers twice for price and revenue losses during the same year. Farmers can receive support from the ARC or PLC programs and the federal crop insurance program to cover price declines and revenue shortfalls during the same year. Congress should prohibit this duplication by prohibiting farmers from receiving an ARC or PLC payment the same year they receive a crop insurance indemnity. l Reduce the premium subsidy rate for crop insurance. On average, taxpayers cover about 60 percent47 of the premium cost for policies purchased in the federal crop insurance program. One of the most widely supported and bipartisan policy reforms is to reduce the premium subsidy that taxpayers are forced to pay.48 At a minimum, taxpayers should not pay more than 50 percent of the premium. After all, taxpayers should not have to pay more than the farmers who benefit from the crop insurance policies. CBO has found that reducing the premium subsidy to 47 percent would save $8.1 billion over 10 years and have little impact on crop insurance participation or on the number of covered acres.49 In that analysis, there would be a reduction in insured acres of just one-half of 1 percent, and only 1.5 percent of acres would have lower coverage levels. 50 This reform is basically all benefit with little to no cost. In its recently released report identifying options to reduce the federal deficit, CBO found that reducing the premium subsidy to 40 percent would save $20.9 billion over 10 years.51 Beyond these legislative reforms, the next Administration should: l Communicate to Congress the necessity of transparency and a genuine reform process. The White House and the USDA should make it very clear that the farm bill process, including reform of farm subsidies, must be con- ducted through an open process with time for mark-up and the opportunity for changes to be made outside the Agriculture Committee process. The farm bill too often is developed behind closed doors and without any chance for real reform. The White House, given the power of the bully pulpit, — 298 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise must demand a genuine reform process and express unwavering support for a USDA that shapes a safety net that considers the interests of farmers, while also remembering the interests of taxpayers and consumers. Any safety net for farmers should be a true safety net—one that helps farmers when they have experienced serious unforeseen losses (preferably when there has been a disaster or unforeseen natural event causing damage) and that exists to help them in unusual situations. l Separate the agricultural provisions of the farm bill from the nutrition provisions. To have genuine reform and proper consideration of the issues, agricultural programs should be considered in separate legislation distinct from food stamps and the nutrition part of the farm bill, and reauthorization of such programs should be fixed on different timelines to ensure this separation. Agricultural and nutritional programs, which are distinct from each other, have been combined together for political reasons, something which is readily admitted by proponents of this logrolling. When it comes to American agriculture and welfare programs, they deserve sound policy debates, not political tactics at the expense of thoughtful discourse. Move the Work of the Food and Nutrition Service. The USDA implements many means-tested federal support programs, including the largest food assis- tance program, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, also known as food stamps), and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) Food Program. The Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) oversees these programs and other food and nutrition programs, including the Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion,52 which handles the USDA’s work on the “Dietary Guidelines for Americans” (Dietary Guidelines).53 Food nutrition programs include: SNAP; WIC; the National School Lunch Program (NSLP); the School Breakfast Program (SBP); the Child and Adult Care Food Program; the Nutrition Program for the Elderly; Nutrition Service Incentives; the Summer Food Service Program; the Commodity Supplemental Food Program; the Temporary Emergency Food Program; the Farmer’s Market Nutrition Program; and the Spe- cial Milk Program. The next Administration should: l Move the USDA food and nutrition programs to the Department of Health and Human Services. There are more than 89 current means- tested welfare programs, and total means-tested spending has been estimated to surpass $1.2 trillion between federal and state resources.54 Because means-tested federal programs are siloed and administered in separate agencies, the effectiveness and size of the welfare state remains

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 Rep. Subramanyam, Suhas

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 46164 Westlake Drive in Sterling, Virginia, as the Firefighter Trevor Brown Post Office Building.

119/hr/5058

Data Infrastructure Energy Measurement and Standards Act

119/hr/9372

Protect Every Preschooler Act of 2026

119/hr/9205

Back to All Bills