Star-Spangled Summit Act of 2025

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/s/2417

Last Updated: September 7, 2026

Star-Spangled Summit Act of 2025

S. 2417, 119th Congress — read as touching Construction & Engineering.

The sponsor

Sen. Curtis, John R. [R-UT]

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

The money

$172,600 raised

25 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. 344-346 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests, and Mining. Hearings held.

February 11, 2026

Introduced

Committee Review

📍 Current Status

Next: The bill moves to the floor for full chamber debate and voting.

🗳️

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 of the Star-Spangled Summit Act of 2025**

As a visionary entrepreneur and thought leader, I'll dissect this bill through the lens of wealth creation, regulatory efficiency, and strategic opportunities.

**Main Purpose & Objectives** The Star-Spangled Summit Act aims to grant a special use permit for maintaining a flagpole bearing the United States flag at Kyhv Peak Lookout Point in Utah. The primary objective is to ensure the continued display of the American flag at this location, with minimal bureaucratic hurdles.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The bill:

1. Directs the Secretary of Agriculture to issue a special use permit for 10 years. 2. Defines "covered flagpole" and "qualified person" to ensure only eligible individuals or organizations can apply. 3. Exempts land use fees for the permit holder. 4. Waives National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirements, streamlining the permitting process.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders** The primary stakeholders are:

1. Robert S. Collins of Provo, Utah, who is initially offered the special use permit. 2. Qualified persons or organizations in Utah County, Utah, who can apply for the permit if Mr. Collins declines. 3. The Secretary of Agriculture and the Forest Service, responsible for administering the permit.

**Potential Impact & Implications** This bill has limited direct implications for my business interests, but it demonstrates a laudable approach to regulatory efficiency. By waiving NEPA requirements and exempting land use fees, the government is acknowledging that excessive bureaucracy can stifle innovation and progress.

However, I would have preferred more explicit language regarding private sector involvement in maintaining the flagpole and surrounding infrastructure. A public-private partnership could yield significant cost savings and improved efficiency.

In conclusion, while this bill may seem trivial at first glance, it represents a small step toward reducing regulatory burdens and promoting private sector engagement. As a thought leader, I will continue to advocate for policies that prioritize innovation, deregulation, and strategic partnerships between government and industry.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (billionaire personality)

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

**Main Purpose & Objectives** The Star-Spangled Summit Act of 2025 aims to direct the Secretary of Agriculture to issue a special use permit for maintaining a flagpole bearing the United States flag at Kyhv Peak Lookout Point in Utah. The bill's primary objective is to ensure that the flagpole is properly cared for and maintained.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The bill defines key terms, such as "covered flagpole" and "qualified person," which refers to individuals or organizations with experience caring for flagpoles. It also outlines the process for selecting a qualified person to receive the special use permit. The Secretary of Agriculture is required to issue the permit within 180 days of the bill's enactment.

Notably, the bill exempts land use fees for the special use permit and allows the Secretary to prioritize certain qualified persons when issuing the permit. It also includes provisions for renewing or issuing new permits every 10 years.

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

* The Secretary of Agriculture * Robert S. Collins, a specific individual from Provo, Utah, who is eligible to receive the special use permit * Qualified persons, including individuals and organizations with experience caring for flagpoles * The Forest Service

**Potential Impact & Implications** If passed, this bill would ensure that the flagpole at Kyhv Peak Lookout Point is properly maintained. However, it's worth noting that this bill seems to be a relatively minor piece of legislation, and its impact might be limited.

As I taught you in 8th grade civics class, the legislative process involves checks and balances to prevent any one branch of government from abusing its power. In theory, this means that bills like this one should undergo careful consideration and scrutiny before becoming law. However, it's clear that not everyone is paying attention to these processes, or we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Now, I know some of you might be thinking, "But what about the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)?" Ah, yes, NEPA. Remember when we learned about environmental policy in class? This bill actually exempts itself from NEPA requirements, which could have implications for environmental impact assessments and public participation.

Moving forward, it's essential to understand how bills like this one can affect various stakeholders and the environment. As I always say, "An informed citizenry is the backbone of a healthy democracy."

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (civics_teacher personality)

My fellow truth-seekers, gather 'round and listen closely, for I have uncovered a web of deceit hidden in plain sight within the Star-Spangled Summit Act of 2025. On its surface, this bill appears to be a harmless gesture, allowing for the maintenance of a flagpole bearing the Stars and Stripes at Kyhv Peak Lookout Point in Utah. But, my friends, do not be fooled.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The stated purpose of this bill is to direct the Secretary of Agriculture to issue a special use permit for the maintenance of a covered flagpole at Kyhv Peak Lookout Point. However, I believe this is merely a smokescreen, a clever ruse to distract us from the true intentions of our government.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill establishes a 10-year special use permit for the placement and maintenance of the flagpole, with priority given to Robert S. Collins of Provo, Utah, or a qualified person designated by him. This raises several red flags (pun intended). Why is Mr. Collins being singled out for this honor? What connections does he have to the government or other powerful entities?

Furthermore, the bill exempts the holder of the special use permit from paying land use fees, which could be seen as a sweetheart deal. And what's more, the Secretary of Agriculture has the authority to impose terms and conditions on the permit holder, giving them significant control over the situation.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The primary beneficiaries of this bill appear to be Robert S. Collins and the qualified person who will ultimately receive the special use permit. However, I suspect there are other, more influential parties at play here. Perhaps Mr. Collins is a frontman for a larger organization or corporation seeking to exploit the resources surrounding Kyhv Peak Lookout Point.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill has far-reaching implications that extend beyond the simple maintenance of a flagpole. It sets a precedent for the government to grant special favors and exemptions to select individuals or organizations, potentially leading to cronyism and corruption.

Moreover, the exemption from land use fees could be seen as a subtle attempt to undermine the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which is explicitly waived in this bill. This could have disastrous consequences for our environment and natural resources.

In conclusion, my friends, do not be swayed by the patriotic façade of this bill. There are hidden agendas at play here, and it's up to us to uncover them. Stay vigilant, stay informed, and always question the official narrative.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (conspiracy_uncle personality)

(Outraged tone) Folks, we've got another example of the elites in Washington trying to dictate what's best for us regular Americans. The Star-Spangled Summit Act of 2025 is a bill that's supposed to be about patriotism and freedom, but let me tell you, it's just another power grab by the deep state.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The main purpose of this bill is to allow the Secretary of Agriculture to issue a special use permit for maintaining a flagpole bearing the American flag at Kyhv Peak Lookout Point in Utah. Sounds simple enough, right? But don't be fooled – this is just a Trojan horse for more government control.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill defines what constitutes a "covered flagpole" and who can apply for the special use permit. It also outlines the terms and conditions of the permit, including the requirement that the holder must properly care for the flagpole. But here's the kicker – the Secretary of Agriculture gets to decide who's eligible for the permit, and they don't even have to follow the usual environmental review process under NEPA.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The main stakeholders here are Robert S. Collins of Provo, Utah, who's somehow managed to get his name attached to this bill, and any other "qualified person" who wants to apply for the permit. But let's be real – this is just a sweetheart deal for some well-connected individual or group.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The impact of this bill will be minimal, but it sets a bad precedent. If we allow the government to dictate what can and can't be done on public land without proper oversight, where does it end? This is just another example of the elites trying to erode our freedoms and consolidate power.

(Smirk) Now, I know some of you might be thinking, "But wait, isn't this bill just about putting up a flagpole?" And to that, I say, don't be naive. This is all part of a larger game – a game where the government gets to decide what's best for us, and we're just along for the ride.

(Outraged tone) So, let's call this bill what it is: a power grab by the deep state. We need to stand up against these kinds of abuses of power and demand that our elected officials actually represent us, not just their special interest friends. (Wink)

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (fox_host personality)

Another masterpiece of legislative theater, courtesy of Senators Curtis and Lee. The Star-Spangled Summit Act of 2025 is a shining example of how our esteemed lawmakers prioritize the truly important issues facing this great nation.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The primary objective of this bill is to grant a special use permit for a flagpole bearing the United States flag at Kyhv Peak Lookout Point in Utah. Because, clearly, the most pressing concern for the American people is ensuring that a single flagpole in a remote location remains upright and proudly displaying Old Glory.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill establishes a special use permit process, which will be issued by the Secretary of Agriculture for a period of 10 years. The permit can be granted to Robert S. Collins of Provo, Utah, or another "qualified person" who meets certain criteria. The Secretary is also authorized to impose terms and conditions on the permit holder to ensure proper care and maintenance of the flagpole.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The main beneficiaries of this bill are Robert S. Collins (who gets a special permit) and the local Utah County, Utah, newspaper of record (which gets to publish a notice about the permit). Oh, and let's not forget the Secretary of Agriculture, who gets to exercise their authority in issuing permits.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a prime example of legislative busywork. It solves no pressing problem, addresses no critical issue, and benefits only a select few. The real purpose behind this bill is likely to curry favor with local constituents or to provide a feel-good photo opportunity for the sponsoring senators.

In medical terms, this bill is akin to prescribing a placebo to treat a patient's hypochondria. It may make the patient (or in this case, the voters) feel better temporarily, but it does nothing to address the underlying issues.

The fact that this bill even made it out of committee is a testament to the boundless creativity of our lawmakers in finding new ways to waste taxpayer time and resources. Bravo, Senators Curtis and Lee! You've managed to create a bill that's as useful as a chocolate teapot.

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

**Summary of S 2417: Star-Spangled Summit Act of 2025**

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The Star-Spangled Summit Act aims to direct the Secretary of Agriculture to issue a special use permit for maintaining a flagpole bearing the United States flag at Kyhv Peak Lookout Point in Utah. The bill's primary objective is to ensure the continued presence of the American flag at this location, while also providing a framework for its maintenance and upkeep.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill introduces several key provisions:

1. **Special Use Permit:** The Secretary of Agriculture must issue a 10-year special use permit for maintaining the flagpole at Kyhv Peak Lookout Point. 2. **Eligibility:** The permit may be issued to Robert S. Collins or, if declined, to a qualified person who resides in Utah County and has experience with flagpole maintenance. 3. **Application Process:** Qualified persons must submit an application to the Secretary, who will prioritize applicants based on previous permit holders, recommendations from prior permit holders, and other relevant factors. 4. **Terms and Conditions:** The Secretary may impose terms and conditions on permit holders to ensure proper care and maintenance of the flagpole. 5. **Land Use Fee Exemption:** Permit holders are exempt from land use fees.

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

1. Robert S. Collins, a resident of Provo, Utah 2. Qualified persons residing in Utah County who may apply for the special use permit 3. The Secretary of Agriculture and the Forest Service 4. Visitors to Kyhv Peak Lookout Point

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The bill's potential impact includes:

1. **Continued Presence of the American Flag:** The bill ensures that the flag will continue to be displayed at Kyhv Peak Lookout Point. 2. **Streamlined Permit Process:** The bill establishes a clear process for issuing and renewing special use permits, reducing administrative burdens on the Forest Service. 3. **Community Engagement:** The bill encourages community involvement in maintaining the flagpole through qualified persons who reside in Utah County.

However, potential implications to consider include:

1. **Environmental Impact:** While the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) does not apply to this permit process, environmental concerns may still arise from the placement and maintenance of the flagpole. 2. **Access and Safety:** The bill's provisions for reasonable access to Kyhv Peak Lookout Point may raise safety concerns or impact natural resources.

Overall, the Star-Spangled Summit Act aims to balance the importance of displaying the American flag with responsible management of public lands and community engagement.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (neutral personality)

Let's break down this bill, bro.

**Main Purpose & Objectives** The Star-Spangled Summit Act of 2025 is all about keepin' the American flag flyin' high at Kyhv Peak Lookout Point in Utah. The main goal is to issue a special use permit for maintainin' a flagpole bearin' the Stars and Stripes, and makin' sure it's done right.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** This bill directs the Secretary of Agriculture to issue a 10-year special use permit for the flagpole at Kyhv Peak Lookout Point. Here are some key points:

* The permit will be issued to Robert S. Collins or, if he declines, to a qualified person from Utah County. * The Secretary can impose terms and conditions on the permit holder to ensure proper care and maintenance of the flagpole. * There's no land use fee for this special use permit. * The bill also outlines procedures for renewin' or issuin' new permits.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders** This bill affects:

* Robert S. Collins, who might get the initial permit * Qualified persons from Utah County, who could get the permit if Collins declines * The Secretary of Agriculture and the Forest Service, who'll be issuin' and managin' the permit * Local communities in Utah County, who might have an interest in the flagpole

**Potential Impact & Implications** This bill's got some chill vibes, bro. It's all about keepin' the American spirit alive at Kyhv Peak Lookout Point. Here are some potential implications:

* The bill ensures that the flagpole will be properly maintained and cared for. * It provides a clear process for issuin' and renewin' permits, which should reduce confusion and controversy. * By exemptin' land use fees, the bill's showin' respect for the importance of flyin' the American flag in this location.

However, there are some potential concerns, dude. For example:

* The bill might be seen as a special favor to Robert S. Collins or other qualified persons from Utah County. * There could be environmental impacts from maintainin' the flagpole, although the bill does exempt it from NEPA requirements.

Overall, this bill's all about keepin' the American spirit alive and flyin' high at Kyhv Peak Lookout Point, bro.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (surfer personality)

**Bill Analysis: S 2417 - Star-Spangled Summit Act of 2025**

**Main Purpose & Objectives** The Star-Spangled Summit Act aims to direct the Secretary of Agriculture to issue a special use permit for maintaining a flagpole bearing the United States flag at Kyhv Peak Lookout Point in Utah. The bill's primary objective is to ensure the continued presence of the American flag at this location, which has been maintained by Robert S. Collins since 2007.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The bill introduces several key provisions:

1. **Special Use Permit**: The Secretary of Agriculture must issue a special use permit for a period of 10 years to maintain the flagpole. 2. **Priority Issuance**: If Robert S. Collins declines the permit, priority is given to a qualified person who previously held a special use permit or one identified by the prior permit holder. 3. **Land Use Fee Exemption**: The Secretary cannot assess land use fees for this special use permit. 4. **NEPA Exemption**: The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) does not apply to the issuance, renewal, or administration of this special use permit.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders** The primary stakeholders are:

1. **Robert S. Collins**: As the current maintainer of the flagpole, he is directly affected by the bill. 2. **Qualified Persons**: Non-profit entities or volunteer organizations in Utah County, Utah, with experience maintaining flagpoles may be eligible for the special use permit. 3. **Forest Service**: The Secretary of Agriculture and the Forest Service are responsible for issuing and administering the special use permit.

**Potential Impact & Implications** The bill's impact is relatively limited, as it primarily affects a single location in Utah. However:

1. **Precedent Setting**: Exempting this special use permit from NEPA may set a precedent for future exemptions. 2. **Private Interests**: The priority issuance provision could be seen as favoring private interests (Robert S. Collins or his identified successor) over other qualified persons. 3. **Environmental Concerns**: By exempting the permit from NEPA, potential environmental concerns related to the flagpole's maintenance may not receive adequate consideration.

**Monied Interest Analysis** There is no apparent significant monied interest backing this bill. The sponsors, Senators Curtis and Lee, have not received notable donations from organizations directly related to this issue. However, it is worth noting that Senator Lee has received contributions from various Utah-based businesses and individuals who may have an interest in promoting tourism or patriotic activities in the state.

**Committee Capture** The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources will review this bill. While there are no apparent conflicts of interest among committee members, it is essential to monitor their actions and potential amendments to ensure that private interests do not unduly influence the legislative process.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (whistleblower personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Sen. Curtis, John R. [R-UT]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$172,600

17 donors

PACs

Organizations

$33,800

Committees

Individuals

$138,800

No PAC contributions found

KELLER INVESTMENTS PROPERTIES

1 transaction

$29,800

SUQUAMISH INDIAN TRIBE

1 transaction

$1,000

TENNIS & SUN LC

1 transaction

$1,000

BGR GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS, LLC

1 transaction

$1,000

FUGAL COMMERCIAL SERVICES INC

1 transaction

$1,000

No committee contributions found

STEEL, SHAWN

2 transactions

$20,000

BAKER, PAUL

2 transactions

$13,200

CORTEZI, NICHOLAS

2 transactions

$13,200

EVANS, ROGER

2 transactions

$13,200

MCLEAN, TERRENCE

2 transactions

$13,200

OSTER, ROBERT

2 transactions

$13,200

ROBERTSON, WILHELMINA

2 transactions

$13,200

WEINER, KANE

2 transactions

$13,200

BERKLEY, WILLIAM

1 transaction

$6,600

CROTTY, THOMAS

1 transaction

$6,600

RIPPEL, JOHN

1 transaction

$6,600

SMITH, RYAN

1 transaction

$6,600

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

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

Sen. Lee, Mike [R-UT]

ID: L000577

Top Contributors

MACRICOSTAS, GEORGE

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualINCLINE VILLAGE, NV

$13,200

May 14, 2024

PFAUTCH, ROY

CIVIC SERVICE • CONSULTANT

IndividualSAINT LOUIS, MO

$9,900

Feb 20, 2024

NICOLAISEN, JAMES E

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualPORTLAND, OR

$8,700

Jul 19, 2024

METZGER, WILLIAM

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualBOONVILLE, IN

$8,700

Jul 23, 2024

S., TINA

SELF • RESTAURANT

IndividualMAUREPAS, LA

$8,700

Sep 10, 2024

DE CARLI, JAMES

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualDANA POINT, CA

$8,700

Aug 10, 2024

EDWARDS, ZELLA

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualCHAMBERSBURG, PA

$8,700

Sep 10, 2024

RICHARDSON, CHERYL

GRANITE SCHOOL DISTRICT • PARAEDUCATOR

IndividualSLC, UT

$8,700

Jul 9, 2024

DONADIO, RICHARD

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualDACULA, GA

$8,700

Aug 13, 2024

ZALL, MARGIE

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualBOYNTON BEACH, FL

$8,700

Sep 19, 2024

Donor Network - Sen. Curtis, John R. [R-UT]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

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

Showing 43 nodes and 65 connections

Total contributions: $65

Top Donors - Sen. Curtis, John R. [R-UT]

Showing top 17 donors by contribution amount

5 Orgs12 Individuals

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 1 helped.

+Construction & Engineeringconfidence 0.80
Section 2(b) implies construction or maintenance activities for the flagpole at Kyhv Peak Lookout Point, which could benefit the construction and engineering industry.

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: 59%

Pages: 344-346AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on issuing a special use permit for a flagpole on Forest Service land, which is a minor administrative function of the USDA, while Project 2025's USDA policy emphasizes transforming the food system, advancing climate-smart agriculture, and restructuring USDA priorities—areas the bill does not address."

Key themes:USDAForest Servicespecial use permitland management

— 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 the Interior

Weak

Vector: 57%

Pages: 572-574AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on issuing a special use permit for a flagpole display, which tangentially relates to Project 2025's themes of streamlining permitting processes and reducing administrative burdens, but does not address the core energy leasing, mineral development, or NEPA reform objectives emphasized in the policy."

Key themes:permitting streamliningfee exemptionadministrative efficiencyspecial use permit process

— 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).

Department of Energy and Related Commissions

Minimal

Vector: 58%

Pages: 428-430AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on issuing a special use permit for a flagpole at a Utah lookout point, which is unrelated to the Department of Energy's nuclear waste management, Yucca Mountain licensing, or environmental cleanup objectives outlined in the Project 2025 policy."

— 396 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l Increase the use of commercial waste disposal. Using commercial disposal would reduce capital costs (~ $2 billion) for new disposal sites to accelerate cleanup and reduce local post-cleanup environmental liability at multiple sites. l Revisit the Hanford cleanup’s regulatory framework. Hanford poses significant political and legal challenges with the State of Washington, and DOE will have to work with Congress to make progress in accelerating cleanup at that site. DOE and EPA need to work more closely to coordinate their responses to claims made under the TPA and work more aggressively for changes, including congressional action if necessary, to achieve workable cleanup goals. l Establish more direct leadership and accountability to the Deputy Secretary consistent with Government Accountability Office recommendations.91 l Change Environmental Management’s culture to promote innovation and completion. Budget Environmental Management received slightly less than $7.6 billion in FY 2021, and its budget request for FY 2023 is approximately $8.06 billion.92 The additional funding necessary to accelerate closure of the program will need to be considered as part of a broader government-wide discussion about yearly appropriations. OFFICE OF CIVILIAN RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT (OCRWM) (CURRENTLY OFFICE OF SPENT FUEL AND WASTE DISPOSITION) Mission/Overview The Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) of 1982 conferred the responsibility for commercial nuclear waste disposal on the federal government,93 and in 2002, Congress designated a single repository located at Yucca Mountain in Nevada as the national repository site. The act also established the Office of Civilian Radio- active Waste Management (OCRWM).94 The Obama Administration shut down OCRWM in 2010. The Office of Spent Fuel and Waste Disposition, which is headed by a non-confirmed Deputy Assistant Secretary in the Office of Nuclear Energy, is currently responsible for the management of nuclear waste, and interim disposal is taking place on various sites. Providing a plan for the proper disposal of civilian nuclear waste is essential to the promotion of nuclear power in the United States. — 397 — Department of Energy and Related Commissions Needed Reforms l Work with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission as it reviews DOE’s permit application for Yucca Mountain. According to both the scientific community and global experience, deep geologic storage is critical to any plan for the proper disposal of more than 75 years of defense waste and 80,000 tons of commercial spent nuclear fuel.95 Yucca Mountain remains a viable option for waste management, and DOE should recommit to working with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission as it reviews DOE’s permit application for a repository. Finishing the review does not mean that Yucca Mountain will be completed and operational; it merely presents all the information for the State of Nevada, Congress, the nuclear industry, and the Administration to use as the basis for informed decisions. l Reform the licensing process. The reactor licensing process is inadequate. Fixing nuclear waste management will require wholesale reform that realigns responsibilities, resets incentives, and introduces market forces without creating chaos within the current nuclear industry that has been built around the current system. l Produce concrete outcomes from consent-based siting. Beginning in the Obama Administration and resurrected during the Biden Administration, consent-based siting for a civilian waste nuclear repository has been a way to delay any politically painful decisions about siting a permanent civilian nuclear waste facility. In 2022, DOE announced $16 million to support local communities in consent-based siting.96 The next Administration should use the consent-based-siting process to identify and build temporary or permanent sites for a civilian waste nuclear repository (or repositories). New Policies l Restart Yucca Mountain licensing. DOE should restart the Yucca Mountain licensing process. Any continuation of interim storage facilities should be made part of an integrated waste management system that includes geologic storage. Further, building on the consent-based siting process already underway, DOE should find a second repository site. l Fix the policy and cost drivers that are preventing nuclear storage. The federal government continues to hold $46 billion97 in the Nuclear Waste Fund (NWF),98 funded by utilities and their ratepayers for permanent disposal of nuclear waste. However, no such storage exists, and spent nuclear fuel remains on site at most nuclear plants. Meanwhile, Congress uses those funds to finance unrelated spending. Moreover, DOE’s

Department of Energy and Related Commissions

Minimal

Vector: 57%

Pages: 443-445AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill addresses a flagpole permit under the Department of Agriculture, which has no substantive connection to the Department of Energy and Related Commissions policies outlined in Project 2025."

— 411 — Department of Energy and Related Commissions 19. President Donald J. Trump, Executive Order 13920, “Securing the United States Bulk-Power System,” May 1, 2020, in Federal Register, Vol. 85, No. 86 (May 4, 2020), pp. 26595–26599, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/ pkg/FR-2020-05-04/pdf/2020-09695.pdf (accessed February 13, 2023). 20. 18 U.S. Code § 824a(c), https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/16/824a (accessed February 27, 2023). 21. Report No. 117-98, Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, 2022, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. House of Representatives, 117th Cong. 1st Sess., July 20, 2021, p. 6, https:// www.congress.gov/117/crpt/hrpt98/CRPT-117hrpt98.pdf (accessed February 13, 2023). 22. H.R. 3684, Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, Public Law No. 11-58, 117th Congress, November 15, 2021, Division J, Title III. 23. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Chief Financial Officer, Department of Energy FY 2023 Congressional Budget Request, Budget in Brief, p. 7. 24. Timothy Gardner, “White House Asks Congress for $500 mln to Modernize Oil Reserve,” Reuters, November 16, 2022, https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-oil-spr-idAFL1N32C36I (accessed February 13, 2023). 25. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Electricity, “Our History,” https://www.energy.gov/oe/about-us/our- history (accessed February 13, 2023). 26. Press release, “Secretary of Energy Signs Order to Mitigate Security Risks to the Nation’s Electric Grid,” U.S. Department of Energy, December 17, 2021, https://www.energy.gov/articles/secretary-energy-signs-order- mitigate-security-risks-nations-electric-grid (accessed February 13, 2023). 27. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Electricity, “Revocation of Prohibition Order Securing Critical Defense Facilities,” Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 76 (April 22, 2021), pp. 21308–21309, https://www.govinfo.gov/ content/pkg/FR-2021-04-22/pdf/2021-08483.pdf (accessed February 13, 2023). 28. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Chief Financial Officer, Department of Energy FY 2023 Congressional Budget Request, Budget in Brief, pp. 19 and 61. 29. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Nuclear Energy, “About Us,” https://www.energy.gov/ne/about-us (accessed February 13, 2023). 30. H.R. 3809, Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, Public Law No. 97-425, 97th Congress, January 7, 1983, https:// www.congress.gov/97/statute/STATUTE-96/STATUTE-96-Pg2201.pdf (accessed February 24, 2023). 31. The Heritage Foundation, “Budget Blueprint for Fiscal Year 2023: Reduce the DOE Office of Nuclear Energy,” https://www.heritage.org/budget/pages/recommendations/1.270.127.html. 32. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Chief Financial Officer, Department of Energy FY 2023 Congressional Budget Request, Budget in Brief, pp. 23 and 58. 33. 42 USC § 16291, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/16291 (accessed February 27, 2023). 34. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management, “About Us: Mission,” https:// www.energy.gov/fecm/mission (accessed February 13, 2023). 35. U.S. Government Accountability Office, Carbon Capture and Storage: Actions Needed to Improve DOE Management of Demonstration Projects, GAO-22-105111, December2021, https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-22- 105111.pdf (accessed February 13, 2023). 36. International Energy Agency, The Role of Critical Minerals in Clean Energy Transitions, World Energy Outlook Special Report, revised March 2022, https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/ffd2a83b-8c30-4e9d-980a- 52b6d9a86fdc/TheRoleofCriticalMineralsinCleanEnergyTransitions.pdf (accessed February 13, 2023). 37. See 42 U.S. Code § 16291. 38. 42 U.S. Code Ch. 55, §§ 4321–4347, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/chapter-55 (accessed February 27, 2023). 39. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Categorical Exclusions from Environmental Review,” Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking; Request for Comment, Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 87 (May 7, 2021), pp. 24514–24516, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2021-05-07/pdf/2021-09675.pdf (accessed February 27, 2023), and Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Categorical Exclusions from Environmental Review,” Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking; Reopening of Comment Period, Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 160 (August 23, 2021), pp. 47032–47033, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2021-08-23/pdf/2021-18058.pdf (accessed February 27, 2023). 40. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Chief Financial Officer, Department of Energy FY 2023 Congressional Budget Request, Budget in Brief, pp. 19, 21, 23, and 52. — 412 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 41. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Chief Financial Officer, Department of Energy FY 2023 Congressional Budget Request, Budget in Brief, pp. 3, 6, 12, 19, 21, and 23. 42. S. 622, Energy Policy and Conservation Act, Public Law 94-163, 94th Congress, December 22, 1975, https:// www.congress.gov/94/statute/STATUTE-89/STATUTE-89-Pg871.pdf (accessed February 27, 2023). 43. H.R. 6, Energy Policy Act of 2005, Public Law No. 109-58, 109th Congress, August 8, 2005, https://www. congress.gov/109/plaws/publ58/PLAW-109publ58.pdf (accessed February 27, 2023). 44. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, “About the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy,” https://www.energy.gov/eere/about-office-energy-efficiency-and- renewable-energy (accessed February 28, 2023). 45. Ibid. 46. See note 41, supra. 47. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Chief Financial Officer, Department of Energy FY 2023 Congressional Budget Request, Budget in Brief, pp. 19, 23, 43, and 49. 48. See U.S. Department of Energy, Grid Deployment Office, “About Us,” https://www.energy.gov/gdo/about-us (accessed February 13, 2023). 49. U.S. Department of Energy, Grid Deployment Office, “Building a Better Grid Initiative,” https://www.energy. gov/gdo/building-better-grid-initiative (accessed February 13, 2023). 50. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Chief Financial Officer, Department of Energy FY 2023 Congressional Budget Request, Budget in Brief, pp. 2, 19, 21, 23, and 84. “The FY 2023 Budget Request to Congress proposes to split the Electricity appropriation account into two accounts: Electricity and Grid Deployment Office (GDO). Had the proposed FY 2023 structure been in place in FY 2021 and FY 2022, the $7,000,000 shown under the Electricity account’s Transmission Permitting and Technical Assistance (TPTA) program would have appeared under Grid Technical Assistance in GDO and the $3,000,000 shown under Program Direction in the Electricity account represents the estimated share of Electricity PD funding associated with TPTA and would have appeared under Program Direction in GDO.” Ibid., p. 84, note. 51. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations, “About Us: Our Mission,” https://www. energy.gov/oced/about-us (accessed February 13, 2023). 52. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Chief Financial Officer, Department of Energy FY 2023 Congressional Budget Request, Budget in Brief, p. 6. 53. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations, “About Us: Our Story,” https://www. energy.gov/oced/about-us (accessed February 28, 2023). 54. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations, “OCED Project Portfolio,” https://www. energy.gov/oced/office-clean-energy-demonstrations (accessed February 28, 2023). 55. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Chief Financial Officer, Department of Energy FY 2023 Congressional Budget Request, Volume 3, Cybersecurity, Energy Security, and Emergency Response, Federal Energy Management Program, Grid Deployment Office, Indian Energy Policy & Programs, Loan Programs, Manufacturing & Energy Supply Chains, Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations, Petroleum Reserves, Power Marketing Administrations, State and Community Energy Programs, April 2022, p. 104, https://www.energy. gov/sites/default/files/2022-09/doe-fy2023-budget-volume-3-v2.pdf (accessed February 13, 2023). 56. See, for example, ibid., pp. 104 and 107. 57. U.S. Department of Energy, Loan Program Office, “LPO Year in Review 2022: New Legislation,” January 5, 2023, https://www.energy.gov/lpo/articles/lpo-year-review-2022 (accessed February 28, 2023). Emphases in original. 58. H.R. 6256, To Ensure That Goods Made with Forced Labor in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region of the People’s Republic of China Do Not Enter the United States Market, and for Other Purposes, Public Law No. 117-78, 117th Congress, December 23, 2021, https://www.congress.gov/117/plaws/publ78/PLAW-117publ78.pdf (accessed February 28, 2023). 59. H.R. 2272, America COMPETES Act, Public Law 110–69, 110th Congress, August 9, 2007, § 5012, https://www. congress.gov/110/plaws/publ69/PLAW-110publ69.pdf (accessed February 13, 2023). 60. Ibid., § 5012(c)(1). 61. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Chief Financial Officer, Department of Energy FY 2023 Congressional Budget Request, Budget in Brief, March 2022, p. 103.

Department of Energy and Related Commissions

Minimal

Vector: 56%

Pages: 404-406AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill concerns a flagpole permit on public lands in Utah, while the Project 2025 excerpt focuses on DOE nuclear policy, energy security, and related commissions; there is no substantive policy overlap."

— 372 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise licensing process for Yucca Mountain as a permanent repository for spent nuclear fuel is on hold. Without storage sites, spent nuclear fuel remains temporarily stored at nuclear plants. In addition to permanent storage, low- level nuclear waste facilities are needed. New Policies: NNSA The U.S. nuclear arsenal needs to be updated and reinvigorated if we are to be able to deal effectively with threats from China, Russia, and other adversaries. As a semi-autonomous agency, the NNSA has the primary responsibility for researching and designing new nuclear warheads and for ensuring that the existing nuclear arsenal is still potent. These efforts require significant funding and scientific know- how. In addition, NNSA develops and designs nuclear propulsion reactors for the U.S. Navy. NNSA also plays a role in preventing nuclear proliferation. With strong leadership by the Secretary of DESAS, the next Administration should: l Fund the design, development, and deployment of new nuclear warheads, including the production of plutonium pits in quantity.15 l Expand the U.S. Navy and develop new nuclear naval reactors to ensure that the Navy has the nuclear propulsion it needs to secure America’s strategic interests. l End ineffective and counterproductive nonproliferation activities like those involving Iran and the United Nations. Budget DOE’s total FY 2023 budget request (which does not include IIJA, IRA, and CHIPS and Science Act funding) was for $48,183,451,000.16 Many DOE activities are required by various authorization and appropriations bills. To implement many of the policies contained in these proposals, several laws will need to be amended, including the Department of Energy Organization Act, IIJA, IRA, and possibly portions of the CHIPS (Creating Healthy Incentives to Produce Semiconductors) and Science Act.17 Ending taxpayer subsidies will promote an “all of the above” energy policy, lead to more energy resources, reduce costs, and save taxpayers billions of dollars. OFFICE OF CYBERSECURITY, ENERGY SECURITY, AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE (CESER) Mission/Overview CESER’s mission is to “enhance the security and resilience of U.S. critical energy infrastructure to all hazards,” to “mitigate the impacts of disruptive events and risk — 373 — Department of Energy and Related Commissions to the sector overall through preparedness and innovation,” and to “respond to and facilitate recovery from energy disruptions in collaboration with other Federal agencies, the private sector, and State, local, tribal, and territory governments.”18 Needed Reforms The threats to U.S. energy infrastructure are real and persistent, and CESER’s role—working to support national security by working with the private sector to ensure energy security—is a proper one for government. Though CESER is properly focused on the threat to the grid from inverter-based resources like wind and solar, it needs to focus on the entire energy system, including the interdependence between natural gas and electric generation and cybersecurity. A good first step would be to reinstate an iteration of the Trump Administration’s Executive Order 13920, “Secur- ing the United States Bulk-Power System.”19 The Biden Administration also placed the Strategic Petroleum Reserves (SPR) and DOE’s Federal Power Act 202(c) author- ity20 under the CESER office, which should continue in the next Administration. New Policies CESER should be refocused to prioritize the cybersecurity, physical security, and resilience of critical infrastructure. Through research and development, tech- nical assistance to states and industry, and emergency exercises, CESER can make a difference in our energy security posture. Budget CESER received $177 million for FY 2022 under the Energy and Water Develop- ment and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, 2022,21 and $550 million through the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.22 The FY 2023 budget request is for $202 million.23 In addition, the White House has sent a letter to Congress request- ing additional appropriations of $500 million to modernize the SPR.24 OFFICE OF ELECTRICITY (OE) Mission/Overview OE was created after the 2003 blackouts to improve grid reliability and energy assurance.25 OE works to defend and promote the reliability and resiliency of the electric grid through power grid modeling and analytics, cyber resilience programs, and coordination with private-sector electricity providers. It also works to identify Defense Critical Electric Infrastructure. Needed Reforms l Focus more intently on grid reliability. There are significant cyber, physical, and reliability threats to the electric grid, and it is important

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. Curtis, John R.

A bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 111 South Tremont Street in Tremonton, Utah, as the "Sorensen-Estrada Post Office".

119/s/4523

CCP IP Act

119/s/330

A bill to amend the National Trails System Act to direct the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study on the feasibility of designating the Bonneville Shoreline Trail.

119/s/1135

Back to All Bills