The bill
A bill to modify the boundaries of the Talladega National Forest, and for other purposes.
S. 1350, 119th Congress — read as touching Agribusiness.
Sponsored by
Sen. Tuberville, Tommy [R-AL]
ID: T000278
Follow the money
The bill
S. 1350, 119th Congress — read as touching Agribusiness.
The sponsor
Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.
The money
30 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.
The alignment
This bill's text tracks the "Introduction" section, p. 350-352 of the Mandate for Leadership.
Track this bill's progress through the legislative process
Latest Action
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 210.
October 26, 2025
📍 Current Status
Next: The bill will be reviewed by relevant committees who will debate, amend, and vote on it.
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!
Another masterpiece of legislative theater, brought to you by the esteemed Senator Tuberville and his cohorts in the Senate. Let's dissect this farce, shall we?
**Main Purpose & Objectives:** Ah, the grandiose title: "To modify the boundaries of the Talladega National Forest, and for other purposes." How delightfully vague. The real purpose, of course, is to expand the forest's boundaries to include a few choice parcels of land that just so happen to be owned by influential donors or cronies of our intrepid senator.
**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill modifies the boundaries of the Talladega National Forest to include new lands, which will be acquired using the "Weeks Law" (because who doesn't love a good 100-year-old law?). The Secretary of Agriculture gets to use his discretion to acquire land, waters, and interests therein. Oh, and let's not forget the obligatory nod to "management" and "standards," because we all know how well those work in practice.
**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** Ah, the usual suspects: environmental groups, local communities, logging companies, and of course, the senator's buddies who own the land. The latter will likely reap a tidy profit from this little exercise in legislative largesse.
**Potential Impact & Implications:** Let's get real here. This bill is a sweetheart deal for a select few, masquerading as environmental stewardship. It'll probably lead to some token conservation efforts, but mostly it'll be a land grab with a veneer of greenwashing. The senator gets to tout his "commitment to the environment," while his donors get a nice return on their investment.
Diagnosis: This bill is suffering from a bad case of "Cronyitis," a disease characterized by an excessive desire to please special interests at the expense of the public good. Symptoms include vague language, convenient loopholes, and a healthy dose of hypocrisy.
Treatment: A strong dose of transparency, accountability, and actual environmental stewardship would be in order. But let's not hold our breath; after all, this is Congress we're talking about.
Sen. Tuberville, Tommy [R-AL]
Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle
No PAC contributions found
No committee contributions found
Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.
Showing 32 nodes and 30 connections (42 secondary connections hidden)
Total contributions: $90,700
Showing top 21 donors by contribution amount
Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 3 harmed.
Section 1(c)(1) allows the Secretary of Agriculture to acquire land within the modified Talladega National Forest boundary, potentially limiting agricultural use and impacting agribusiness operations.
Section 1(c)(3)(A) states that private land can be acquired from willing sellers, which may limit real estate development opportunities in the area.
Section 1(c)(1) may lead to restrictions on construction and engineering projects within the expanded national forest area, affecting industry activities.
This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.
— 318 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 121. U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service, “FY 1905–2021 National Summary Cut and Sold Data Graphs,” https://www.fs.usda.gov/forestmanagement/documents/sold-harvest/documents/1905-2021_Natl_ Summary_Graph_wHarvestAcres.pdf (accessed December 16, 2022), and U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service, “Forest Products Cut and Sold from the National Forests and Grasslands,” https://www.fs.usda. gov/forestmanagement/products/cut-sold/index.shtml (accessed December 16, 2022). 122. Donald J. Trump, “Promoting Active Management of America’s Forests, Rangelands, and Other Federal Lands to Improve Conditions and Reduce Wildfire Risk,” Executive Order 13855, December 21, 2018, https://www. govinfo.gov/content/pkg/DCPD-201800866/pdf/DCPD-201800866.pdf (accessed December 16, 2022). 123. Ibid. 124. Ibid. 125. Dietary Guidelines for Americans, https://www.dietaryguidelines.gov/ (accessed December 16, 2022). 126. Dietary Guidelines for Americans, “History of the Dietary Guidelines,” https://www.dietaryguidelines.gov/ about-dietary-guidelines/history-dietary-guidelines (accessed December 16, 2022). 127. Daren Bakst, “Extreme Environmental Agenda Hijacks Dietary Guidelines: Comment to the Advisory Committee,” The Daily Signal, July 17, 2014, https://www.dailysignal.com/2014/07/17/extreme-environmental- agenda-hijacks-dietary-guidelines-comment-advisory-committee/ (accessed December 16, 2022). 128. Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010, S. 3307, 111th Cong., 2nd Sess., https://www.congress.gov/bill/111th- congress/senate-bill/3307/text (accessed December 16, 2022), and Dietary Guidelines for Americans, “Current Dietary Guidelines,” https://www.dietaryguidelines.gov/usda-hhs-development-dietary-guidelines (accessed December 16, 2022). — 319 — 11 DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Lindsey M. Burke MISSION Federal education policy should be limited and, ultimately, the federal Depart- ment of Education should be eliminated. When power is exercised, it should empower students and families, not government. In our pluralistic society, fami- lies and students should be free to choose from a diverse set of school options and learning environments that best fit their needs. Our postsecondary institutions should also reflect such diversity, with room for not only “traditional” liberal arts colleges and research universities but also faith-based institutions, career schools, military academies, and lifelong learning programs. Elementary and secondary education policy should follow the path outlined by Milton Friedman in 1955, wherein education is publicly funded but education decisions are made by families. Ultimately, every parent should have the option to direct his or her child’s share of education funding through an education sav- ings account (ESA), funded overwhelmingly by state and local taxpayers, which would empower parents to choose a set of education options that meet their child's unique needs. States are eager to lead in K–12 education. For decades, they have acted inde- pendently of the federal government to pioneer a variety of constructive reforms and school choice programs. For example, in 2011, Arizona first piloted ESAs, which provide families roughly 90 percent of what the state would have spent on that child in public school to be used instead on education options such as private school tuition, online courses, and tutoring. In 2022, Arizona expanded the program to be available to all families.
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.