Biomanufacturing Excellence Act of 2025

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/hr/6089

Last Updated: November 19, 2025

Biomanufacturing Excellence Act of 2025

HR. 6089, 119th Congress — read as touching Pharmaceuticals.

The sponsor

Rep. Houlahan, Chrissy [D-PA-6]

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

The money

$66,000 raised

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

The alignment

70% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Department of Commerce" section, p. 717-719 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Invalid Date

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 Senate

🏛️

House Review

🎉

Passed Congress

🖊️

Presidential Action

⚖️

Became Law

📚 How does a bill become a law?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bill Summary

Summary Style:

**Biomanufacturing Excellence Act of 2025: A Strategic Analysis**

As a visionary entrepreneur and thought leader, I've scrutinized the Biomanufacturing Excellence Act of 2025 (HR 6089). This bill presents an intriguing opportunity for strategic investment and growth in the biotechnology sector.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The primary objective of this legislation is to establish a National Biopharmaceutical Center of Excellence, aimed at advancing biopharmaceutical manufacturing innovation, supporting good manufacturing practices, and fostering workforce development. The center will facilitate collaboration among public, private, and nonprofit institutions to accelerate the commercialization of biotechnology products.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends the National Institute of Standards and Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 271 et seq.) by establishing a new section, SEC. 36, which outlines the objectives and funding mechanisms for the Center of Excellence. The center will be awarded grants or enter into other transaction agreements on a competitive basis to achieve its objectives.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The key stakeholders in this legislation include:

1. Biotechnology companies 2. Pharmaceutical manufacturers 3. Institutions of higher education 4. Federal, State, and local government agencies 5. Non-profit organizations 6. Professional organizations

These parties will benefit from the center's research, workforce development programs, and infrastructure support.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The Biomanufacturing Excellence Act has significant implications for the biotechnology sector:

1. **Increased competitiveness:** By investing in biopharmaceutical manufacturing innovation, the United States can reduce its dependence on foreign supply chains and strengthen its position in the global market. 2. **Job creation and workforce development:** The center's training programs will bolster biotechnology talent, creating new job opportunities and driving economic growth. 3. **Regulatory efficiency:** By supporting good manufacturing practices and standardization, the center will help streamline regulatory processes, reducing barriers to innovation. 4. **Strategic investment opportunities:** As a visionary entrepreneur, I recognize the potential for strategic investments in biotechnology companies, research institutions, and infrastructure development.

In conclusion, the Biomanufacturing Excellence Act of 2025 presents a compelling opportunity for growth, innovation, and strategic investment in the biotechnology sector. By supporting this legislation, we can accelerate the commercialization of biotechnology products, drive economic growth, and strengthen the United States' position as a global leader in biopharmaceutical manufacturing.

**Projected Impact on My Empire:** I estimate that this legislation will have a positive impact on my business interests, with potential returns on investment ranging from 10% to 20% annually. By investing in biotechnology companies, research institutions, and infrastructure development, I can capitalize on the growth opportunities presented by this legislation.

**Recommendation:** As a thought leader and entrepreneur, I strongly recommend supporting the Biomanufacturing Excellence Act of 2025. This legislation

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Houlahan, Chrissy [D-PA-6]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$66,000

16 donors

PACs

Organizations

Committees

Individuals

$66,000

No PAC contributions found

No organization contributions found

No committee contributions found

KEARNS, ANDREW

2 transactions

$6,600

MANDEL, STEVE

2 transactions

$6,600

STERNLIEB, JANINE

2 transactions

$6,600

HALFAKER, DAWN

2 transactions

$6,600

HASHEMI, MARY

1 transaction

$3,300

KAFKER, ROGER

1 transaction

$3,300

MORGAN, HOWARD

1 transaction

$3,300

KENNEY, PETER

1 transaction

$3,300

MANDEL, SUE

1 transaction

$3,300

KJELLERUP, PETER

1 transaction

$3,300

METZ, MITCHELL

1 transaction

$3,300

CABOT, AMANDA

1 transaction

$3,300

BASILE, ROBERT

1 transaction

$3,300

ZIMMERMAN, EDWARD

1 transaction

$3,300

ERICKSEN, EUGENE

1 transaction

$3,300

KAHN, RONALD N.

1 transaction

$3,300

Donor Network - Rep. Houlahan, Chrissy [D-PA-6]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

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

Showing 39 nodes and 20 connections (54 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $66,000

Top Donors - Rep. Houlahan, Chrissy [D-PA-6]

Showing top 16 donors by contribution amount

16 Individuals

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 3 helped.

+Pharmaceuticalsconfidence 0.90
Section 3(a)(2)(A) states the Center of Excellence will advance biopharmaceutical manufacturing, including developing flexible technologies and improving processes for multiple biopharmaceutical manufacturing platforms, which directly benefits pharmaceutical manufacturers involved in biopharmaceutical production.
+Biotech & Researchconfidence 0.90
Section 3(a)(2)(C) and (D) focus on advancing workforce training and deploying infrastructure for innovative biopharmaceutical manufacturing by engaging with institutions of higher education, pharmaceutical manufacturers, and other entities, which supports biotech research firms and life-sciences companies involved in biopharmaceutical development.
+Hospitals & Health Systemsconfidence 0.70
Section 3(a)(2)(A) mentions products of particular importance to health security, implying benefits for hospitals and health systems that use biopharmaceuticals, though the connection is less direct than for manufacturers.

Who funds the sponsor on these industries

For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Rep. Houlahan, Chrissy [D-PA-6])received from donors associated with that industry during the 2022–present cycles. Donations are not proof of intent — they are a record of who funds the people writing the law.

Industries this bill HELPS

Pharmaceuticals$3,900
from 18 contributions
- MARANO, COLLEEN W.$1,300
- WIVEL, ASHLEY$1,000
- WALSH, MARY BRIDGET$1,000
- HAUPT, KIM$250
- JOUIN, SAMANTHA$250

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 Commerce

Moderate

Vector: 62%

Pages: 717-719AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill aligns with Project 2025's emphasis on strengthening U.S. innovation and competitiveness through NIST, particularly in advancing manufacturing technology and workforce development, though it does not directly address the specific NIST reforms proposed in Project 2025 such as privatizing MEP or transferring Baldrige."

Key themes:National Institute of Standards and Technologymanufacturing innovationworkforce trainingtechnology developmentU.S. competitiveness

— 685 — Department of Commerce l Establishing MBDA as a data and research clearinghouse for minority business enterprises and policymakers; l Coordinating amongst Cabinet agencies, state and local government, and trade associations to best leverage resources and encourage growth and innovation; and l Evaluating the harmful effects of unfair trade practices on minority-owned businesses and their employees. U.S. PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office carries out a core constitutional man- date from Section 8, Article 1: “The Congress shall have Power...[t]o promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discover- ies.” Strong intellectual property (IP) protections form the bedrock of American business and are a key factor in making the U.S. economy the most innovative in the world. As such, a conservative Administration must constantly work to strengthen IP rights and combat the incorrect view that strong IP rights some- how limit innovation. Political leadership in a new conservative Administration should: l Support like-minded countries as candidates for leadership in the World Intellectual Property Organization and build strong relationships with international partners to strengthen intellectual property rights. l Re-examine patent eligibility requirements in Section 101 of the Patent Act7 and support internal and/or legislative reforms to enable U.S. leadership in critical and emerging technologies such as quantum computing, 5G, and artificial intelligence. l Take a balanced approach to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and prioritize rapid and transparent processing of applications and appeals. l Work with Administration partners and Congress to find and punish trademark infringers and counterfeiters. l Oppose efforts to provide intellectual property waivers for cutting-edge technologies, including for COVID-19 vaccines and therapeutics, through the World Trade Organization’s Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights agreement or any other mechanism. — 686 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY The National Institute of Standards and Technology is charged with promoting U.S. innovation and competitiveness by “advancing measurement science, standards, and technology.”8 NIST carries out cutting edge research, helps industry establish standards and best practices, and is the nation’s foremost authority on measurements. NIST’s atomic clock, for instance, maintains the official time of the United States. An incoming Administration should evaluate the federal government’s civilian research footprint and consolidate those functions while ensuring that any research conducted with taxpayer dollars serves the national interest in a concrete way in line with conservative principles. Beyond this, an incoming Administration should: l Privatize the Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership. The Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) establishes and manages a network of centers focused on advising small- and medium-sized manufacturers in order to improve processes and thereby strengthen the U.S. industrial base. When Congress created the program, MEP centers were intended to transition to self-sustaining private institutions after using government funds to begin operations, but the prohibition on long-term funding was abolished in 1998. MEP’s business advisory services would be more properly carried out by the private sector. The next Administration should propose legislation to zero out this $150 million program and fully privatize existing MEP centers. l Transfer the Baldridge Performance Excellence Program. This program’s “process” assists companies in improving management and operations, a function more properly and effectively carried out by the private sector. This program operates at a cost to taxpayers, despite thousands of dollars in fees charged to each participating company or entity and long-term plans to make the program self-sufficient. Maintenance and operation of the program should be entirely handed over to the Baldridge Award Foundation to be run by non-government staff via fees. l Increase value to taxpayers. NIST should reinvigorate the Technology Transfer and ROI (return on investment) initiatives begun under the Trump Administration. These initiatives help speed the process of commercializing science funded by the federal government. l Reestablish U.S. dominance in international standards. NIST should explore ways to incentivize broader U.S. participation in standards-setting bodies and the exclusion of participants from adversaries like China. Standards are set to facilitate trade in countries that utilize those standards: Countries

Small Business Administration

Moderate

Vector: 61%

Pages: 789-791AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill aims to bolster domestic biopharmaceutical manufacturing capacity and reduce reliance on foreign supply chains, which aligns with the Project 2025 SBA focus on strengthening domestic manufacturing and scaling up innovations. However, it does not directly address SBA loan programs, SBIC reforms, or small‑business capital access, resulting in only moderate thematic overlap."

Key themes:domestic manufacturinginnovation scale‑upworkforce trainingsupply chain resiliencesmall business support

— 756 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Domestic Manufacturing and Small Business. Small businesses in the manufacturing sector face shortfalls in access to capital.61 As manufacturing employment, domestic business investment, and non–information technology output have declined,62 expectations for market returns and the capital available to small manufacturing enterprises have diminished. This is especially true for capital-intensive sectors like transportation and energy that require large up-front investments and relatively lower-margin sectors like plastics, textiles, furniture, and agriculture. Yet these industries and others like them traditionally have been the backbone of American manufacturing employment. They also are sources of self-sufficiency and resilience at a time when global supply chains are increas- ingly uncertain. The public policy problems that are caused by declining small manufacturing are especially acute when it comes to the production of advanced technologies. Other agencies and programs invest immense taxpayer resources in basic science and research. Over time, that research results in some breakthrough technologies, but when it is time to put these breakthroughs into practice by manufacturing goods and services, much of the necessary productive capacity is offshore.63 For many technologies, the American economy lacks the capacity to “scale up” inno- vations that might not be immediately profitable. Instead, those technologies are put into practice abroad. In this way, foreign companies and foreign productive sites buy and implement taxpayer-funded American technologies. The SBA’s existing programs should be reformed to expand the private market for capital in small-manufacturer expansion. The next Administration should: l Ask Congress to make available a category of Section 7(a) loans with a larger available principal that is used to finance manufacturing facility construction and equipment upgrading. The proposed SBA Reauthorization and Improvement Act of 2019, for example, would have increased the maximum loan principal to $50 million for advanced manufacturing construction and upgrading.64 The Section 7(a) loan program operates through private lenders and guarantees a portion of private-sector loans made to qualifying small businesses. The maximum principal available is $5 million, but small businesses in capital-intensive sectors require significantly larger amounts of capital to finance up-front capital costs. l Reform the Small Business Investment Company (SBIC) program to refocus its support on small businesses rather than technology startups only. The SBIC program operates through private venture capital and private equity funds by providing eligible funds with guaranteed debt financing to support investments in small businesses. However, the program — 757 — Small Business Administration largely duplicates private-sector venture capital to the extent that the sector receiving much of its support is software and information technology, which already receive the lion’s share of venture capital investment.65 In addition, Congress should reform the SBIC program to make its financing more favorable to capital-intense investments and small manufacturers. The Health, Economic Assistance, Liability Protection, and Schools (HEALS) Act, introduced in 2020,66 and American Innovation and Manufacturing Act, introduced in 2021,67 would allow SBIC to offer longer-term financing to manufacturers and make the program more fiscally sustainable. Small-Business Size Standard Modernization. Many small-business pro- grams both inside and outside the SBA use the SBA’s definition of “small business.” Under the Small Business Act, the SBA is tasked with defining what counts as a small business and ensuring that the definition varies from industry to industry to reflect differences in regular size by industry. However, the SBA’s small-business size standards reflect a one-size-fits-all approach under which all businesses within its size standard are considered small businesses for all eligible purposes, from gov- ernment contracting preferences to eligibility for SBA loans through private banks. At the same time, the SBA is an outlier among competing economies in not considering medium-sized enterprises along with small businesses, often referred to collectively as small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Medium-sized and regional businesses are increasingly critical to maintaining competition. The next Administration should: l Encourage Congress to create a “medium-sized business” classification with its eligibility for programs confined to access to capital programs from projects for which credit elsewhere does not exist. SBA POLICY PRIORITIES FOR 2025 AND BEYOND Legislation. The new Administration can support SBA reform legislation pro- posed in Congress that aligns with key measures outlined in this chapter. It also can support legislative initiatives that would help SBA to focus on its core statutory activities such as capital access, federal contracting opportunities, and regulatory advocacy. For example: l The IMPROVE the SBA Act68 would strengthen accountability, transparency, and oversight of the SBA and aligns with many of the reforms outlined in this chapter.

Department of Health and Human Services

Weak

Vector: 63%

Pages: 488-490AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The Biomanufacturing Excellence Act focuses on advancing biopharmaceutical manufacturing infrastructure and workforce development, which is unrelated to Project 2025's HHS section that emphasizes abortion data reporting, opposition to gender identity data collection, FDA regulatory reforms for generic drugs and lab-developed tests, and abortion pill restrictions. There is no substantive overlap in policy goals or mechanisms."

Key themes:FDAmanufacturinghealthcare

— 456 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise abortion providers and whether better prenatal physical, mental, and social care improves infant outcomes and decreases abortion rates, especially among those who are most vulnerable. The Ensuring Accurate and Complete Abortion Data Reporting Act of 20239 would amend title XIX of the Social Security Act and Public Health Service Act to improve the CDC’s abortion reporting mechanisms by requiring states, as a condition of federal Medicaid payments for family planning services, to report streamlined variables in a timely manner. The CDC should immediately end its collection of data on gender identity, which legitimizes the unscientific notion that men can become women (and vice versa) and encourages the phenomenon of ever-multiplying subjective identities. FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION (FDA) The FDA’s mission includes ensuring the safety and efficacy of drugs, biological products, and medical devices. Federal Laws That Shield Big Pharma from Competition. Because generics generally cost far less than brand-name drugs, consumers begin to save money as soon as a generic product comes on the market. The vast majority are very afford- able with 93 percent of generic products costing $20 or less. Savings would be even higher under proposals that prevent brand-name man- ufacturers from slowing down or impeding the entrance of generic products into the marketplace. Specifically, the FDA should prohibit pharmaceutical companies from purposely sitting on their legally available right to be the first to sell generic versions of their drugs. Additionally, Congress should create legal remedies for generic companies to obtain samples of brand-name products for their generic development efforts and should prohibit meritless “citizen petitions” submitted by manufacturers to delay approval of a generic competitor.10 Approval Process for Laboratory-Developed or Modified Medical Tests. Learning from the failed early COVID-19 testing experience, Congress and the FDA should focus on reforming laws and regulations governing medical tests, especially with respect to laboratory-developed tests. Commercial tests are developed with the intention of being widely marketed, distributed, and used, while laboratory-developed tests are created with the intention of being used solely within one laboratory. A test developed by a lab in accordance with the protocols developed by another lab (non-commercial sharing) currently constitutes a “new” laboratory-developed test because the lab in which it will be used is different from the initial developing lab. To encourage interlab- oratory collaboration and discourage duplicative test creation (and associated regulatory and logistical burdens), the FDA should introduce mechanisms through which laboratory-developed tests can easily be shared with other laboratories with- out the current regulatory burdens.11 — 457 — Department of Health and Human Services The “laboratory-developed tests” category currently encompasses a range of possible tests, many of which would be characterized more appropriately as “lab- oratory-modified tests” because they are not truly novel tests but rather modified versions of existing tests. To avoid stifling innovation and access to medical care, the applicable statutes and regulations should be revised to facilitate greater access to such modified tests.12 Finally, the FDA has long held that it has regulatory authority over such tests, while others have argued that they should be considered clinical services regulated by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). The FDA currently has regulatory authority over in vitro diagnostics, and under the Clinical Lab- oratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA),13 the CMS ensures that labs meet analytical validity standards for test methods. Congress, the FDA, and the CMS need to clarify and disentangle overlapping authorities over tests to eliminate regulatory confusion.14 Drug Shortages. The very thin profit margins and the regulatory burdens associated with generic drug manufacturing discourage inventory and capacity investments by manufacturers and contribute to drug shortages. HHS and the FDA should encourage more dependable generic drug manufacturing. The FDA should expand its current pass/fail approach to drug facility inspec- tions into a graded system that recognizes manufacturers that exceed minimum standards by investing in improving production reliability. The FDA should also add facility codes to drug packaging and construct a searchable database that cross-references product codes and facility codes. That would enable wholesalers and pharmacy benefit managers to identify and preference drugs manufactured at more reliable facilities, thus encouraging generic drug manufacturers to compete on reliability as well as on price. For its part, HHS should exempt multi-source generic drugs from requirements to pay rebates to Medicaid and other federally funded health programs, as those provisions penalize new investments in expanding manufacturing capacity when supply is unable to meet demand.15 Additionally, FDA and NIH should promote efficacy trials of new applications for generic drugs, which might include NIH fund- ing such trials or conducting its own. Abortion Pills. Abortion pills pose the single greatest threat to unborn chil- dren in a post-Roe world. The rate of chemical abortion in the U.S. has increased by more than 150 percent in the past decade; more than half of annual abortions in the U.S. are chemical rather than surgical. The abortion pill regimen is typically a two-part process. The first pill, mifepris- tone, causes the death of the unborn child by cutting off the hormone progesterone, which is required to sustain a pregnancy. The second pill, misoprostol, causes con- tractions to induce a delivery of the dead child and uterine contents, usually into a toilet at home. The abortion-pill regimen is currently approved for up to 70 days

Department of Agriculture

Weak

Vector: 62%

Pages: 344-346AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on advancing biopharmaceutical manufacturing, while the Project 2025 USDA section emphasizes transforming the food system, climate-smart agriculture, and rural economic development; only limited themes such as workforce training and supply chain resilience overlap."

Key themes:workforce trainingsupply chain resiliencetechnology innovationresearch funding

— 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: 62%

Pages: 344-346AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on establishing a biopharmaceutical manufacturing center under NIST, while the Project 2025 USDA section emphasizes transforming the U.S. food system and agricultural initiatives; they share only broad themes like workforce training, research funding, and supply chain resilience, but differ in primary sector and objectives."

Key themes:workforce developmentresearch fundingsupply chain resilienceinnovationbiotechnology

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. Houlahan, Chrissy

To amend title II of the Public Health Service Act to include as an additional right or privilege of commissioned officers of the Public Health Service (and their beneficiaries) certain leave provided under title 10, United States Code to commissioned officers of the Army (or their beneficiaries).

119/hr/2846

To direct the Joint Committee on the Library to procure a statue of Benjamin Franklin for placement in the Capitol.

119/hr/250

Mathematical and Statistical Modeling Education Act

119/hr/730

Back to All Bills

Biomanufacturing Excellence Act of 2025