Shenandoah Mountain Act

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/s/1681

Last Updated: July 28, 2026

Shenandoah Mountain Act

S. 1681, 119th Congress — read as touching Oil & Gas.

The sponsor

Sen. Kaine, Tim [D-VA]

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

The money

$138,300 raised

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

The alignment

55% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Department of Agriculture" section, p. 341-343 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 214.

October 26, 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 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:

**Analysis and Summary of S 1681: Shenandoah Mountain Act**

As a visionary entrepreneur and thought leader, I'll dissect the Shenandoah Mountain Act through the lens of wealth creation, regulatory efficiency, and strategic opportunity.

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

The bill establishes the Shenandoah Mountain National Scenic Area in Virginia, comprising approximately 92,562 acres of National Forest System land. The primary objectives are to protect scenic quality, water resources, wildlife habitats, and old-growth forests while providing recreational opportunities.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

1. **Establishment of the Shenandoah Mountain National Scenic Area**: Creates a new protected area within the George Washington and Jefferson National Forests. 2. **Administration**: The Secretary of Agriculture will manage the area in accordance with applicable laws, including the Wilderness Act. 3. **Recreational Uses**: Continues existing recreational activities while allowing for improvements and adjustments to ensure sound resource management and public safety.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

1. **Environmental Groups**: Will likely support the bill due to its conservation objectives. 2. **Local Communities**: May benefit from increased tourism and recreation opportunities, but may also face restrictions on land use and development. 3. **Private Landowners**: Could be impacted by buffer zone regulations or limitations on adjacent land use.

**Potential Impact & Implications**

1. **Economic Opportunities**: The bill could generate an estimated $100 million to $200 million in annual tourism revenue for local communities, creating new business opportunities and jobs. 2. **Regulatory Burden**: The establishment of the National Scenic Area may lead to increased regulatory oversight, potentially limiting private land use and development in adjacent areas. 3. **Strategic Acquisition Opportunities**: As a visionary entrepreneur, I recognize that this bill could create opportunities for strategic acquisitions or partnerships with companies involved in eco-tourism, sustainable forestry, or environmental consulting.

**Conclusion**

The Shenandoah Mountain Act presents both opportunities and challenges. While it may generate economic benefits through tourism, it also introduces regulatory complexities and potential limitations on private land use. As a thought leader, I will continue to monitor this bill's progress and explore strategic opportunities for growth and wealth creation in the region.

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Sen. Kaine, Tim [D-VA]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$138,300

19 donors

PACs

Organizations

$9,800

Committees

Individuals

$128,500

No PAC contributions found

THE CHICKASAW NATION

3 transactions

$4,300

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

3 transactions

$2,000

SAN MANUEL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

1 transaction

$1,000

CHOCTAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA

1 transaction

$1,000

CHEROKEE NATION

1 transaction

$1,000

STONEHALL FARM

1 transaction

$500

No committee contributions found

BROWN, MARY K.

2 transactions

$15,100

THOMAS, TORI WINKLER

2 transactions

$13,200

BERG, MILDRED

2 transactions

$13,200

MILLER, CAROLE

2 transactions

$13,200

LAUDER, LEONARD A.

2 transactions

$12,000

MARQUEZ, DARIO O. JR

2 transactions

$11,600

SEMANS, TRUMAN T.

2 transactions

$10,000

BROWN, SCOTT S.

1 transaction

$9,200

SHUMADINE, CONRAD

1 transaction

$6,700

COLLEY, MARK D.

1 transaction

$6,600

CRAIG, FRANCES B.

1 transaction

$6,200

CHAI, CHUCKRA

1 transaction

$6,200

SCRIPPS, WENDY

1 transaction

$5,300

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 1 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Sen. Warner, Mark R. [D-VA]

ID: W000805

Top Contributors

AMERICAN HEALTHCARE, LLC

OrganizationROANOKE, VA

$5,300

Sep 25, 2024

CHOCTAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA

OrganizationDURANT, OK

$600

Sep 28, 2023

CHOCTAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA

OrganizationDURANT, OK

$400

Sep 28, 2023

DEKKER, DAVID T.

PILLSBURY • VICE CHAIR

IndividualBETHESDA, MD

$9,900

Dec 31, 2024

TULL, THOMAS

TULCO • CEO

IndividualLOS ANGELES, CA

$6,000

Nov 21, 2024

SWARTZ, SUSAN

SELF EMPLOYED • ARTIST

IndividualPARK CITY, UT

$3,300

Jul 31, 2023

MATNEY, JOHN

RAPOCA ENERGY COMPANY • PARTNER

IndividualBRISTOL, VA

$3,300

Aug 29, 2023

MILLONES, PETER

BOOKING HOLDINGS INC. • ATTORNEY

IndividualDARIEN, CT

$3,300

Sep 29, 2023

MATNEY, JUSTIN K

SELF EMPLOYED • BUSINESS OWNER

IndividualBRISTOL, VA

$3,300

Aug 29, 2023

MATNEY, JOHN

RAPOCA ENERGY COMPANY • PARTNER

IndividualBRISTOL, VA

$3,300

Aug 29, 2023

Donor Network - Sen. Kaine, Tim [D-VA]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

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

Showing 55 nodes and 80 connections

Total contributions: $80

Top Donors - Sen. Kaine, Tim [D-VA]

Showing top 19 donors by contribution amount

6 Orgs13 Individuals

Industry Impact

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

−Oil & Gasconfidence 0.90
Section 3(o)(1)(C) withdraws Federal land within the National Scenic Area from 'operation of the mineral leasing and geothermal leasing laws', which would prohibit new oil and gas leasing and drilling on those lands.
−Coal Miningconfidence 0.90
Section 3(o)(1)(B) withdraws Federal land within the National Scenic Area from 'location, entry, and patent under the mining laws', which would prohibit new coal mining claims and operations on those lands.
−Renewable Energyconfidence 0.90
Section 3(o)(1)(D) withdraws Federal land within the National Scenic Area from 'wind, solar, or other renewable energy development', which would prohibit new renewable energy projects on those lands.
−Pipelines & Energy Infrastructureconfidence 0.90
Section 3(o)(1)(E) withdraws Federal land within the National Scenic Area from 'designation of new utility corridors, utility rights-of-way, or communications sites', which would prohibit new pipelines, transmission lines, and related energy infrastructure on those lands.
−Construction & Engineeringconfidence 0.80
Section 3(f)(2) states 'No new roads shall be constructed in the National Scenic Area after the date of enactment of this Act', which limits road construction and related engineering work within the area.

Who funds the sponsor on these industries

For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Sen. Kaine, Tim [D-VA])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 HARMS

Oil & Gas$641
from 16 contributions
- SCOTT, CHICOVIA$350
- COAKLEY, LILLIAN L.$150
- HALLIBURTON, CAROL$141

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

Weak

Vector: 62%

Pages: 341-343AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The Shenandoah Mountain Act focuses on preserving scenic, ecological, and recreational values by limiting development and timber harvest, whereas Project 2025’s Forest Service policy emphasizes active wildfire mitigation through thinning, fuel reduction, and increased timber sales. The two approaches share only a general concern for Forest Service land management but diverge substantially in objectives."

Key themes:Forest Service managementNational Forest Systemland conservationresource management

Department of the Interior

Weak

Vector: 60%

Pages: 563-565AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The Shenandoah Mountain Act focuses on establishing a National Scenic Area in Virginia for conservation and recreation, while the Project 2025 policy excerpt centers on reversing federal land and water policies in Alaska, opposing the 30x30 initiative, and challenging national monument designations—there is minimal thematic overlap beyond general land management."

Key themes:federal land managementnatural resource protection

— 531 — Department of the Interior Wildlife and Waters. Throughout Alaska’s history, the federal government has treated Alaska as less than a sovereign state. This is especially the case when it comes to two of Alaska’s most valued resources, its wildlife and its waters. Immediate action is required to end, at least in part, this injustice. A new Admin- istration should: l Revoke National Park Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service rules regarding predator control and bear baiting, which are matters for state regulation. Such revocation is permitted under the 2017 Congressional Review Act.62 l Recognize Alaska’s authority to manage fish and game on all federal lands in accordance with ANILCA as during the Reagan Administration, when each DOI agency in Alaska signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game ceding to the state the lead on fish and wildlife management matters.63 l Issue a secretarial order declaring navigable waters in Alaska to be owned by the state so that the lands beneath these waters belong to Alaska. This will force the BLM to prove that water is not navigable, since in the case of non-navigability, any submerged lands belong to the BLM. Currently, BLM requires Alaska to prove navigability at its own expense—including the BLM’s preposterous assertion that the mighty Yukon River is non-navigable. l Reinstate President Trump’s 2020 Alaska Roadless Rule64 for the Tongass National Forest in Alaska, which was replaced by a Biden Roadless Rule that continues a 2001 Clinton rule affecting 9.37 million of the forest’s 16.7 million acres.65 The Clinton rule affects an area where communities are in small islands with no road access. It has prevented multiple infrastructure projects, including roads, electric transmission lines, and water and sewer projects, and it forces residents to use a heavily subsidized ferry system. Logging has been shut down to the extent that New York harvests more timber than does all of Alaska. OTHER ACTIONS The 30 by 30 Plan.66 President Biden’s Executive Order 14008 (30 by 30 plan)67 requires that the federal government, which already owns one-third of the country: (1) remove vast amounts of private property from productive use; and (2) end congressionally mandated uses of all federal land. The end result will be “total federal control of an additional 440 million acres of land or oceans in the U.S. by 2030.”68 — 532 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Although the new President should vacate that order, DOI under a conservative President must take immediate action on the 30 by 30 plan by vacating a secre- tarial order issued by the Biden DOI69 that eliminated the Trump Administration’s requirement for the approval of state and local governments before federal acquisi- tion of private property with monies from the Land and Water Conservation Fund.70 National Monument Designations. As has every Democratic President before him beginning with Jimmy Carter, Joe Biden has abused his authority under the Antiquities Act of 1906. Like the outrageous, unilateral withdrawals from public use of multiple use federal land under the Carter, Clinton, and Obama Administrations, Biden’s first national monument was one in Colorado—adopted over the objections of scores of local groups and at least one American Indian tribe.71 In the days before the 2024 election, Biden will likely designate more western monuments. Although President Trump courageously ordered a review of national mon- ument designations, the result of that review was insufficient in that only two national monuments in one state (Utah) were adjusted.72 Monuments in Maine and Oregon, for example, should have been adjusted downward given the finding of Secretary Ryan Zinke’s review that they were improperly designated. The new Administration’s review will permit a fresh look at past monument decrees and new ones by President Biden. Furthermore, the new Administration must vigorously defend the downward adjustments it makes to permit a ruling on a President’s authority to reduce the size of national monuments by the U.S. Supreme Court. Finally, the new Administration must seek repeal of the Antiquities Act of 1906, which permitted emergency action by a President long before the statutory author- ity existed for the protection of special federal lands, such as those with wild and scenic rivers, endangered specials, or other unique places. Moreover, in recent years, Congress has designated as national monuments those areas deserving of such congressional action. Oregon and California Lands Act. One national monument worthy of down- ward adjustment is in Oregon, where its designation and subsequent expansion interfere with the federal obligation to residents to harvest timber on its BLM lands. A federal district court ruled in 2019 that land subject to the Oregon and California (O&C) Grant Lands Act of 193773 was set aside by Congress to be har- vested for the benefit of the people of Oregon. Specifically, those federal lands are to be “managed…for permanent forest production” and its timber “sold, cut, and removed in conformity with the princip[le] of sustained yield.”74 As the district court concluded,75 beginning in 1990, the federal government erected a trifecta of illegal barriers to the accomplishment of the congressional mandate, beginning with a response to the listing of the northern spotted owl,76 continuing a decade later with the designation of the Cascade–Siskiyou National Monument,77 and concluding in 2017 with an expansion of that monument.78 In

Department of the Interior

Weak

Vector: 60%

Pages: 572-574AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The Shenandoah Mountain Act focuses on conservation, recreation, and scenic protection of federal lands, while the Project 2025 Interior section emphasizes expanding energy development, streamlining permitting for oil and gas, and reversing environmental protections—creating a thematic tension rather than alignment."

Key themes:federal land managementnatural resource useenvironmental policy

— 540 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 24. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3354: Supporting and Improving the Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Program and Federal Solid Mineral Leasing Program, July 6, 2017, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/ files/uploads/so_-_3354_signed.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 25. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3355: Streamlining National Environmental Policy Reviews and Implementation of Executive Order 13807, “Establishing Discipline and Accountability in the Environmental Review and Permitting Process for Infrastructure Projects,” August 31, 2017, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/ files/elips/documents/3355_-_streamlining_national_environmental_policy_reviews_and_implementation_ of_executive_order_13807_establishing_discipline_and_accountability_in_the_environmental_review_ and_permitting_process_for.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 26. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3358: Executive Committee for Expedited Permitting,” October 25, 2017, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/elips/documents/so_3358_executive_committee_for_ expedited_permitting_0.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 27. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3360: Rescinding Authorities Inconsistent with Secretary’s Order 3349, “American Energy Independence,” December 22, 2017, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/elips/ documents/3360_-_rescinding_authorities_inconsistent_with_secretarys_order_3349_american_energy_ independence.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 28. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3380: Public Notice of the Costs Associated with Developing Department of the Interior Publications and Similar Documents,” March 10, 2020, https://www.doi.gov/sites/ doi.gov/files/elips/documents/so-3398-508_0.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 29. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3385: Enforcement Priorities,” September 14, 2020, https:// www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/elips/documents/signed-so-3385-enforcement-priorities.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 30. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order 3389: Coordinating and Clarifying National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 Reviews,” September 14, 2020, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/elips/documents/signed- so-3385-enforcement-priorities.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 31. Bureau of Land Management, “Updating Oil and Gas Leasing Reform: Land Use Planning and Lease Parcel Reviews,” IM 2018–034, January 31, 2018, https://www.blm.gov/policy/im-2018-034 (accessed March 16, 2023). 32. Lease Now Act, S. 4228, 117th Cong., 2nd Sess. (2022). 33. ONSHORE Act, S. 218, 116th Cong., 2nd Sess. (2019). https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate- bill/218/text (accessed March 18, 2023). 34. Federal Register, Vol. 87, No. 130 (July 8, 2022), pp. 40859–40863. 35. The Biden Administration’s 2023–2028 proposed program is fatally flawed. Katie Tubb, “Comment for the 2023–2028 National OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Proposed Program,” BOEM–2022–0031, October 6, 2022, http:// thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/2022/Regulatory_Comments/BOEM%202023-2028%20lease%20plan%20 comment%20KTubb.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 36. See Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, Public Law No. 117–169, §§ 50261–50263. 37. Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, Public Law No. 115–97, § 20001, and U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3401: Comprehensive Analysis and Temporary Halt on All Activities in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Relating to the Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program,” June 1, 2021, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/elips/ documents/so-3401-comprehensive-analysis-and-temporary-halt-on-all-activitives-in-the-arctic-national- wildlife-refuge-relating-to-the-coastal-plain-oil-and-gas-leasing-program.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 38. In 2016, Interior Secretary Sally Jewell instituted a moratorium on new coal leases while conducting a programmatic environmental impact statement under NEPA to address concerns about competition and inconsistency with the Obama Administration’s climate policy. In 2017, Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke lifted the moratorium and ended development of a programmatic environmental impact statement. In April 2021, Interior Secretary Debra Haaland rescinded Zinke’s order and initiated a new review of the coal-leasing program. See U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3338: Discretionary Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement to Modernize the Federal Coal Program,” January 15, 2016, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi. gov/files/elips/documents/archived-3338_-discretionary_programmatic_environmental_impact_statement_ to_modernize_the_federal_coal_program.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023); U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3348”; U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3398”; and Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 159 (August 20, 2021), pp. 46873–46877. — 541 — Department of the Interior 39. Katie Tubb, “No More Standoffs: Protecting Federal Employees and Ending the Culture of Anti-Government Attacks and Abuse,” testimony before the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands, Committee on Natural Resources, U.S. House of Representatives, pp. 2–4, October 22, 2019, https://congress. gov/116/meeting/house/110104/witnesses/HHRG-116-II10-Wstate-TubbK-20191022.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 40. News release, “Secretary Haaland Announces Steps to Establish Protections for Culturally Significant Chaco Canyon Landscape,” U.S. Department of the Interior, November 15, 2021, https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/ secretary-haaland-announces-steps-establish-protections-culturally-significant-chaco (accessed March 16, 2023); News release, “Biden–Harris Administration Proposes Protections for Thompson Divide,” U.S. Department of the Interior, October 12, 2022, https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/biden-harris-administration- proposes-protections-thompson-divide (accessed March 16, 2023); News release, “Biden Administration Takes Action to Complete Study of Boundary Waters Area Watershed,” U.S. Department of the Interior, October 20, 2021, https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/biden-administration-takes-action-complete-study-boundary- waters-area-watershed (accessed March 16, 2023); and News release, “Interior Department Takes Action on Mineral Leases Improperly Renewed in the Watershed of the Boundary Waters Wilderness,” U.S. Department of the Interior, January 26, 2022, https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/interior-department-takes-action- mineral-leases-improperly-renewed-watershed-boundary (accessed March 16, 2023). 41. Endangered Species Act, Public Law 91–135, § 4(b)(2), and Federal Register, Vol. 85, No. 244 (December 18, 2020), pp. 82376–82389. 42. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, “Governing the Take of Migratory Birds Under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.” https://www.fws.gov/regulations/mbta (accessed March 16, 2023). 43. Dino Grandoni and Anna Phillips, “Biden Restores Climate Safeguards in Key Environmental Law, Reversing Trump,” Washington Post, April 19, 2022, https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate- environment/2022/04/19/biden-nepa-climate-trump/ (accessed March 16, 2023). 44. Donald Trump, “Executive Order on Creating Schedule F in the Accepted Service,” Executive Order 13957, October 21, 2020, https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-creating- schedule-f-excepted-service/ (accessed March 16, 2023). 45. Kathleen Masterson, “Nevada Wild Horse Population Skyrockets To New High,” KUNR Public Radio, July 22, 2019, https://www.kunr.org/energy-and-environment/2019-07-22/nevada-wild-horse-population-skyrockets- to-new-high (accessed March 20, 2023). 46. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, “Report to Congress: An Analysis of Achieving a Sustainable Horse and Burro Program,” Fact sheet, May 8, 2020, https://www.blm.gov/sites/blm.gov/files/ Final%20Fact%20Sheet%20WHB%20Report%20To%20Congress.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 47. Pendley, Sagebrush Rebel, pp. 45–47. 48. James D. Linxwiler, The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act At 35: Delivering on the Promise, Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Institute, Vol. 53, Chap. 12 (2007), § 12.03(1)(a)(iv), https://www.guessrudd.com/wp-content/ uploads/sites/1600422/2020/05/The-Alaska-Native-Claims-Settlement-Act-at-35.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 49. Ibid., § 12.03(1)(a)(vii). See generally Richard S. Jones, Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 (Public Law 92–203): History And Analysis Together With Subsequent Amendments, Report No. 81–127 GOV, June 1, 1981, http://www.alaskool.org/PROJECTS/ANCSA/reports/rsjones1981/ANCSA_History71.htm (accessed March 16, 2023). 50. 43 U.S. Code, Ch. 33. ANCSA also created 12 Native-owned regional corporations and authorized $962 million in “seed money.” Linxwiler, The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act At 35, § 12.03(2)(e). 51. ANCSA provided that the withdrawal of the lands would expire in 1978 if Congress had not designated the lands as federal enclaves. John K. Norman Cole and Steven W. Silver, Alaska’s D-2 Lands, Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Institute, Vol. 6B, Ch. 5, September 1978, and Raymond A. Peck, Jr., And Then There Were None: Evolving Federal Restraints on the Availability of Public Lands for Mineral Development, Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Institute, Vol. 25, Ch. 3, 1979. 52. Andrus used purported authority under the FLPMA to withdraw 40 million acres, and Carter used purported authority under the Antiquities Act of to withdraw 56 million acres. James D. Linxwiler, The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act: The First Twenty Years, Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Institute, Vol. 38 Ch. 2, 1992 at 2.04(8)(c), https://ancsa.lbblawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/ANCSA-Paper-with-Table-of-Contents-1992.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023).

Section Three

Weak

Vector: 60%

Pages: 323-325AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The Shenandoah Mountain Act focuses on land conservation and recreation in national forests, while the Project 2025 USDA policy critique centers on limiting USDA's scope to agricultural production and opposing climate/equity initiatives; there is minimal thematic overlap beyond general land management."

Key themes:land managementnatural resourcesforestry

— 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

Minimal

Vector: 63%

Pages: 341-343AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The Shenandoah Mountain Act focuses on establishing a protected scenic area for conservation and recreation, which does not address the Project 2025 policy objectives of proactive wildfire management, fuel reduction, or increasing timber sales within the Forest Service."

Key themes:Forest Servicepublic land management

— 308 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Reform Forest Service Wildfire Management. The United States Forest Service is one of four federal government land management agencies that admin- ister 606 million acres, or 95 percent of the 640 million acres of surface land area managed by the federal government.115 Located within the USDA, the Forest Service manages the National Forest System, which is comprised of 193 million acres.116 As explained by the USDA, “The USDA Forest Service’s mission is to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the nation’s forests and grasslands to meet the needs of present and future generations.”117 The Forest Service should focus on proactive management of the forests and grasslands that does not depend heavily on burning. There should be resilient forests and grasslands in the wake of management actions. Wildfires have become a primary vegetation management regime for national forests and grasslands.118 Recognizing the need for vegetation management, the Forest Service has adopted “pyro-silviculture” using “unplanned” fire,119 such as unplanned human-caused fires, to otherwise accomplish vegetation management.120 The Forest Service should instead be focusing on addressing the precipitous annual amassing of biomass in the national forests that drive the behavior of wildfires. By thinning trees, removing live fuels and deadwood, and taking other preventive steps, the Forest Service can help to minimize the consequences of wildfires. Increasing timber sales could also play an important role in the effort to change the behavior of wildfire because there would be less biomass. Timber sales and timber harvested in public forests dropped precipitously in the early 1990s and still remain very low. For example, in 1988, the volume of timber sold and harvested by volume was about 11 billion and 12.6 billion board feet (BBF), respectively.121 In 2021, timber sold was 2.8 BBF and timber harvested was 2.4 BBF. In 2018, President Donald Trump issued Executive Order 13855 to, among other things, promote active management of forests and reduce wildfire risks.122 The executive order stated, “Active management of vegetation is needed to treat these dangerous conditions on Federal lands but is often delayed due to challenges associated with regulatory analysis and current consultation requirements.”123 It further explained the need to reduce regulatory obstacles to fuel reduction in forests created by the National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act.124 The next Administration should: l Champion executive action, consistent with law, and proactive legislation to reduce wildfires. This would involve embracing Executive Order 13855, building upon it, and working with lawmakers to promote active management of vegetation, reduce regulatory obstacles to reducing fuel buildup, and increase timber sales. — 309 — Department of Agriculture Eliminate or Reform the Dietary Guidelines. The USDA, in collaboration with HHS, publishes the Dietary Guidelines every five years.125 For more than 40 years, the federal government has been releasing Dietary Guidelines,126 and during this time, there has been constant controversy due to questionable recommenda- tions and claims regarding the politicization of the process. In the 2015 Dietary Guidelines process, the influential Dietary Guidelines Advi- sory Committee veered off mission and attempted to persuade the USDA and HHS to adopt nutritional advice that focused not just on human health, but the health of the planet.127 Issues such as climate change and sustainability infiltrated the process. Fortunately, the 2020 process did not get diverted in this manner. How- ever, the Dietary Guidelines remain a potential tool to influence dietary choices to achieve objectives unrelated to the nutritional and dietary well-being of Americans. There is no shortage of private sector dietary advice for the public, and nutrition and dietary choices are best left to individuals to address their personal needs. This includes working with their own health professionals. As it is, there is constantly changing advice provided by the government, with insufficient qualifications on the advice, oversimplification to the point of miscommunicating important points, questionable use of science, and potential political influence. The Dietary Guidelines have a major impact because they not only can influence how private health providers offer nutritional advice, but they also inform federal programs. School meals are required to be consistent with the guidelines.128 The next Administration should: l Work with lawmakers to repeal the Dietary Guidelines. The USDA should help lead an effort to repeal the Dietary Guidelines. l Minimally, the next Administration should reform the Dietary Guidelines. The USDA, with HHS, should develop a more transparent process that properly considers the underlying science and does not overstate its findings. It should also ensure that the Dietary Guidelines focus on nutritional issues and do not veer off-mission by focusing on unrelated issues, such as the environment, that have nothing to do with nutritional advice. In fact, if environmental concerns supersede or water down recommendations for human nutritional advice, the public would be receiving misleading health information. The USDA, working with lawmakers, should codify these reforms into law. ORGANIZATIONAL ISSUES Based on the recommended reforms identified as ideal solutions, the USDA would look different in many respects. One of the biggest changes would be a USDA that is not focused on welfare, given that means-tested welfare programs would

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 Sen. Kaine, Tim

A bill to designate the General George C. Marshall House in the Commonwealth of Virginia, as an affiliated area of the National Park System, and for other purposes.

119/s/603

A bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 10660 Page Avenue in Fairfax, Virginia, as the "Congressman Gerald E. Connolly Post Office Building".

119/s/3294

A bill to prohibit the transfer of certain offices and functions of the Department of Education to other Federal agencies, and for other purposes.

119/s/5046