Rural Partnership and Prosperity Act
Download PDFSponsored by
Rep. Salinas, Andrea [D-OR-6]
ID: S001226
Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law
Track this bill's progress through the legislative process
Latest Action
Invalid Date
Introduced
đź“Ť Current Status
Next: The bill will be reviewed by relevant committees who will debate, amend, and vote on it.
Committee Review
Floor Action
Passed Senate
House Review
Passed Congress
Presidential Action
Became Law
đź“š 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 our esteemed representatives in Congress. Let's dissect this farce, shall we?
**Main Purpose & Objectives**
The Rural Partnership and Prosperity Act (HR 6041) claims to authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to provide rural partnership program grants and technical assistance grants. In other words, it's a feel-good bill designed to throw some crumbs at rural areas while maintaining the illusion of concern for their well-being.
**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**
The bill establishes a grant program with a convoluted allocation formula that ensures everyone gets a slice of the pie, but not too big a slice. It's a classic example of bureaucratic obfuscation, designed to confuse and obscure the fact that this is just another pork-barrel project.
The key provisions include:
* Grant awards for rural areas, because who doesn't love a good handout? * A competitive process for grant selection, which will undoubtedly be rigged in favor of well-connected cronies. * Allocation formulas that ensure Indian Tribes get at least 5% of the funding, because tokenism is always a great way to buy votes.
**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**
The usual suspects:
* Rural areas, who will receive some scraps from the federal table. * Non-profit corporations and associations, which will likely be dominated by insiders with connections to the politicians sponsoring this bill. * For-profit entities, because why not? They'll just find ways to exploit the system and make a profit off the taxpayers' dime. * Indian Tribes, who will receive some token funding in exchange for their votes.
**Potential Impact & Implications**
This bill is a perfect example of legislative malpractice. It's a Band-Aid solution that won't address the underlying issues plaguing rural areas, such as lack of infrastructure, education, and job opportunities. Instead, it will create more bureaucratic red tape, waste taxpayer money on inefficient programs, and line the pockets of well-connected insiders.
The real disease here is corruption, and this bill is just a symptom. It's a cynical attempt to buy votes and maintain the status quo, rather than addressing the systemic problems that have led to rural areas being left behind.
In short, HR 6041 is a legislative placebo, designed to make politicians look good while doing nothing to actually help rural areas. But hey, at least it'll create some nice photo ops for the sponsors.
Related Topics
đź’° Campaign Finance Network
Rep. Salinas, Andrea [D-OR-6]
Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle
No PAC contributions found
No committee contributions found
Donor Network - Rep. Salinas, Andrea [D-OR-6]
Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.
Showing 27 nodes and 30 connections
Total contributions: $86,500
Top Donors - Rep. Salinas, Andrea [D-OR-6]
Showing top 25 donors by contribution amount
Project 2025 Policy Matches
This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document. Higher similarity scores indicate stronger thematic connections.
Introduction
— 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. — 295 — Department of Agriculture l Promote legislative fixes to address abuse. Ideally, Congress would repeal the Secretary’s discretionary authority under section 5 of the Charter Act. There is no reason to maintain such authority. If Congress needs to spend money to assist farmers, it has legislative tools, including the farm bill and the annual appropriations process, to do so in a timely fashion. While not an ideal solution, Congress could also amend the Charter Act to require prior congressional approval through duly enacted legislation before any money is spent. At a minimum, Congress should amend the Charter Act to: l Limit spending to directly help farmers and ranchers address issues due to unforeseen events not already covered by existing programs and that constitute genuine emergencies that must be addressed immediately. l Prohibit the CCC from being used to assist parties beyond farmers and ranchers. l Clarify that spending is only to address problems that are temporary in nature and ensure that funding is targeted to address such problems. l Tighten the discretion within section 5 and identify ways for improper application of the Charter Act to be challenged in court. Reform Farm Subsidies. Too often, agricultural policy becomes synonymous with farm subsidy policy. This is unfortunate, because making them synony- mous fails to recognize that agricultural policy covers a wide range of issues, including issues that are outside the proper scope of the USDA, such as environ- mental regulation. However, there is no question that farm subsidies are an important issue within agricultural policy that should be addressed by any incoming Adminis- tration. There are several principles that even subsidy supporters would likely agree upon, including the need to reduce market distortions. Subsidies should not influence planting decisions, discourage proper risk management and innovation, incentivize planting on environmentally sensitive land, or create barriers to entry for new farmers. Farm subsidies can lead to these market distortions and there- fore, it would hardly be controversial to ensure that any subsidy scheme should be designed to avoid such problems. The overall goal should be to eliminate subsidy dependence. Despite what might be conventional wisdom, many farmers receive few to no subsidies,31 with most subsidies going to only a handful of commodities. According to the Congres- sional Research Service (CRS), from 2014 to 2016, 94 percent of farm program
Introduction
— 537 — Department of the Interior l A significant percentage of critical minerals needed by the United States is on Indian lands, but the Biden Administration has actively discouraged development of critical mineral mining projects on Indian lands rather than assisting in their advancement. l Despite Indian nations having primary responsibility for their lands and environment and responsibility for the safety of their communities, the Biden Administration is reversing efforts to put Indian nations in charge of environmental regulation on their own lands. Moreover, Biden Administration policies, including those of the DOI, have dis- proportionately impacted American Indians and Indian nations. l By its failure to secure the border, the Biden Administration has robbed Indian nations on or near the Mexican border of safe and secure communities while permitting them to be swamped by a tide of illegal drugs, particularly fentanyl. l When ending COVID protocols at Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) schools, Biden’s DOI failed to ensure an accurate accounting of students returning from school shutdowns, which presents a significant danger to the families that trust their children to that federal agency. l The BIE is not reporting student academic assessment data to ensure parents and the larger tribal communities know their children are learning and are receiving a quality education. The new Administration must take the following actions to fulfill the nation’s trust responsibilities to American Indians and Indian nations: l End the war on fossil fuels and domestically available minerals and facilitate their development on lands owned by Indians and Indian nations. l End federal mandates and subsidies of electric vehicles. l Restore the right of tribal governments to enforce environmental regulation on their lands. l Secure the nation’s border to protect the sovereignty and safety of tribal lands. — 538 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l Overhaul BIE schools to put parents and their children first. Finally, the new Administration should seek congressional reauthorization of the Land Buy-Back Program for Tribal Nations,96 which provided a $1.9 bil- lion Trust Land Consolidation Fund to purchase fractional interests in trust or restricted land from willing sellers at fair market value, but which sunsets Novem- ber 24, 2022. New funds should come from the Great American Outdoors Act.97 AUTHOR’S NOTE: The preparation of this chapter was a collective enterprise of individuals involved in the 2025 Presidential Transition Project. All contributors to this chapter are listed at the front of this volume, but some deserve special mention. Kathleen Sgamma, Dan Kish, and Katie Tubb wrote the section on energy in its entirety. I received thoughtful, knowledgeable, and swift assistance from Aubrey Bettencourt, Mark Cruz, Lanny Erdos, Aurelia S. Giacometto, Casey Hammond, Jim Magagna, Chad Padgett, Jim Pond, Rob Roy Ramey II, Kyle E. Scherer, Tara Sweeney, John Tahsuda, Rob Wallace, and Gregory Zerzan. The author alone assumes responsibility for the content of this chapter; no views expressed herein should be attributed to any other individual.
Introduction
— 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
Showing 3 of 5 policy matches
About These Correlations
Policy matches are calculated using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text. A score of 60% or higher indicates meaningful thematic overlap. This does not imply direct causation or intent, but highlights areas where legislation aligns with Project 2025 policy objectives.