Responsible Wildland Fire Recovery Act

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/s/3149

Last Updated: November 12, 2025

Responsible Wildland Fire Recovery Act

S. 3149, 119th Congress — read as touching Construction & Engineering.

The sponsor

Sen. Luján, Ben Ray [D-NM]

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

The alignment

70% 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

Invalid Date

Introduced

📍 Current Status

Next: The bill will be reviewed by relevant committees who will debate, amend, and vote on it.

🏛️

Committee Review

🗳️

Floor Action

✅

Passed Senate

🏛️

House Review

🎉

Passed Congress

🖊️

Presidential Action

⚖️

Became Law

📚 How does a bill become a law?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bill Summary

Summary Style:

**Analysis of S 3149: Responsible Wildland Fire Recovery Act**

As a visionary entrepreneur and thought leader, I'll dissect this bill through the lens of wealth creation, power dynamics, and the inevitable march towards privatization.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** This bill aims to provide cost-share waivers for projects responding to wildland fires caused by government actions on National Forest System land. The stated objective is to ensure affected parties receive 100% funding for remediation costs under authorized federal recovery programs.

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

1. **Cost-Share Waiver:** The Secretary of Agriculture can waive matching fund requirements for projects addressing wildland fires caused by government actions. 2. **Definitions and Scope:** The bill defines "covered wildland fire" and "wildland fire," establishing the scope of eligible projects.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:**

1. **Government Agencies:** Department of Agriculture, specifically the Secretary, will administer the program and waive matching fund requirements. 2. **States, Indian Tribes, Localities, and Individuals:** These entities may benefit from cost-share waivers for wildland fire recovery projects. 3. **Private Contractors and Companies:** Those involved in wildland fire management, remediation, and infrastructure development may see increased business opportunities.

**Potential Impact & Implications:**

1. **Increased Government Spending:** By waiving matching fund requirements, the government will likely incur additional costs, potentially benefiting private contractors and companies. 2. **Privatization Opportunities:** This bill could create new avenues for privatization in wildland fire management and recovery efforts, aligning with my vision of a more efficient, market-driven approach. 3. **Regulatory Relief:** The waiver provision may be seen as a deregulatory measure, allowing for faster project implementation and reduced bureaucratic hurdles.

**Conclusion:** S 3149 presents a calculated risk-reward scenario. While the bill's objectives appear benevolent, its implications could lead to increased government spending, privatization opportunities, and regulatory relief. As a forward-thinking entrepreneur, I recognize the potential for strategic partnerships and investments in wildland fire management and recovery efforts.

**Projection:** If passed, this bill could unlock $500 million to $1 billion in new business opportunities for private contractors and companies involved in wildland fire management and remediation over the next 5 years.

💰 Campaign Finance Network

No campaign finance data available for Sen. Luján, Ben Ray [D-NM]

Industry Impact

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

+Construction & Engineeringconfidence 0.90
Section 3(b) waives cost-share requirements for projects responding to wildland fires caused by USDA management activities, enabling federally funded rehabilitation work (e.g., watershed restoration, debris removal) that construction and engineering firms would perform.

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

Moderate

Vector: 66%

Pages: 341-343AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill addresses wildfire recovery and accountability for management‑caused fires, which touches on the wildfire management reform theme in Project 2025 but does not directly implement proactive fuel reduction, timber sales, or regulatory reforms emphasized in the policy."

Key themes:wildfire managementforest service accountabilitymanagement activitiesrecovery fundingproactive 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

Department of Agriculture

Moderate

Vector: 66%

Pages: 341-343AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on post-fire recovery and cost-share waivers for wildland fires caused by USDA management activities, while Project 2025 emphasizes proactive forest management, fuel reduction, and increased timber sales to prevent wildfires. Both address wildfire risks linked to Forest Service actions, but the bill is reactive whereas the policy is preventive."

Key themes:wildfire managementForest Service accountabilityfuel buildup concernsfederal land management

Department of Agriculture

Weak

Vector: 62%

Pages: 329-331AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"Both the bill and the Project 2025 excerpt involve the Department of Agriculture and federal spending, but the bill focuses on wildfire recovery cost-share waivers while Project 2025 addresses farm subsidy reforms, crop insurance premiums, and nutrition program realignment, resulting only in tangential overlap."

Key themes:USDAfederal fundingprogram reformaccountability

— 297 — Department of Agriculture losses, which is another way of saying minor dips in expected revenue. This is hardly consistent with the concept of providing a safety net to help farmers when they fall on hard times. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO), in one of its options to reduce the federal deficit, has once again identified repealing all Title I farm programs, including ARC, PLC, and the federal sugar program.46 l Stop paying farmers twice for price and revenue losses during the same year. Farmers can receive support from the ARC or PLC programs and the federal crop insurance program to cover price declines and revenue shortfalls during the same year. Congress should prohibit this duplication by prohibiting farmers from receiving an ARC or PLC payment the same year they receive a crop insurance indemnity. l Reduce the premium subsidy rate for crop insurance. On average, taxpayers cover about 60 percent47 of the premium cost for policies purchased in the federal crop insurance program. One of the most widely supported and bipartisan policy reforms is to reduce the premium subsidy that taxpayers are forced to pay.48 At a minimum, taxpayers should not pay more than 50 percent of the premium. After all, taxpayers should not have to pay more than the farmers who benefit from the crop insurance policies. CBO has found that reducing the premium subsidy to 47 percent would save $8.1 billion over 10 years and have little impact on crop insurance participation or on the number of covered acres.49 In that analysis, there would be a reduction in insured acres of just one-half of 1 percent, and only 1.5 percent of acres would have lower coverage levels. 50 This reform is basically all benefit with little to no cost. In its recently released report identifying options to reduce the federal deficit, CBO found that reducing the premium subsidy to 40 percent would save $20.9 billion over 10 years.51 Beyond these legislative reforms, the next Administration should: l Communicate to Congress the necessity of transparency and a genuine reform process. The White House and the USDA should make it very clear that the farm bill process, including reform of farm subsidies, must be con- ducted through an open process with time for mark-up and the opportunity for changes to be made outside the Agriculture Committee process. The farm bill too often is developed behind closed doors and without any chance for real reform. The White House, given the power of the bully pulpit, — 298 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise must demand a genuine reform process and express unwavering support for a USDA that shapes a safety net that considers the interests of farmers, while also remembering the interests of taxpayers and consumers. Any safety net for farmers should be a true safety net—one that helps farmers when they have experienced serious unforeseen losses (preferably when there has been a disaster or unforeseen natural event causing damage) and that exists to help them in unusual situations. l Separate the agricultural provisions of the farm bill from the nutrition provisions. To have genuine reform and proper consideration of the issues, agricultural programs should be considered in separate legislation distinct from food stamps and the nutrition part of the farm bill, and reauthorization of such programs should be fixed on different timelines to ensure this separation. Agricultural and nutritional programs, which are distinct from each other, have been combined together for political reasons, something which is readily admitted by proponents of this logrolling. When it comes to American agriculture and welfare programs, they deserve sound policy debates, not political tactics at the expense of thoughtful discourse. Move the Work of the Food and Nutrition Service. The USDA implements many means-tested federal support programs, including the largest food assis- tance program, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, also known as food stamps), and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) Food Program. The Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) oversees these programs and other food and nutrition programs, including the Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion,52 which handles the USDA’s work on the “Dietary Guidelines for Americans” (Dietary Guidelines).53 Food nutrition programs include: SNAP; WIC; the National School Lunch Program (NSLP); the School Breakfast Program (SBP); the Child and Adult Care Food Program; the Nutrition Program for the Elderly; Nutrition Service Incentives; the Summer Food Service Program; the Commodity Supplemental Food Program; the Temporary Emergency Food Program; the Farmer’s Market Nutrition Program; and the Spe- cial Milk Program. The next Administration should: l Move the USDA food and nutrition programs to the Department of Health and Human Services. There are more than 89 current means- tested welfare programs, and total means-tested spending has been estimated to surpass $1.2 trillion between federal and state resources.54 Because means-tested federal programs are siloed and administered in separate agencies, the effectiveness and size of the welfare state remains

Department of the Interior

Weak

Vector: 61%

Pages: 554-556AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on wildfire recovery funding waivers for USDA-managed lands, while the Project 2025 DOI section emphasizes energy independence, expedited leasing, and streamlining environmental reviews for fossil fuel development. There is only a tangential connection through broader themes of federal land management and process streamlining."

Key themes:federal land managementstreamlined processesagency accountability

— 522 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise similar agency actions made in compliance with that order.18 Meanwhile, the new Administration must immediately reinstate the following Trump DOI sec- retarial orders: l SO 3348: Concerning the Federal Coal Moratorium;19 l SO 3349: American Energy Independence;20 l SO 3350: America-First Offshore Energy Strategy;21 l SO 3351: Strengthening the Department of the Interior’s Energy Portfolio;22 l SO 3352: National Petroleum Reserve—Alaska;23 l SO 3354: Supporting and Improving the Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Program and Federal Solid Mineral Leasing Program;24 l SO 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”;25 l SO 3358: Executive Committee for Expedited Permitting;26 l SO 3360: Rescinding Authorities Inconsistent with Secretary’s Order 3349, “American Energy Independence;”27 l SO 3380: Public Notice of the Costs Associated with Developing Department of the Interior Publications and Similar Documents;28 l SO 3385: Enforcement Priorities;29 and l SO 3389: Coordinating and Clarifying National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 Reviews.30 Actions. At the same time, the new Administration must: l Reinstate quarterly onshore lease sales in all producing states according to the model of BLM’s IM 2018–034, with the slight adjustment of including expanded public notice and comment.31 The new Administration should work with Congress on legislation, such as the Lease Now Act32 and — 523 — Department of the Interior ONSHORE Act,33 to increase state participation and federal accountability for energy production on the federal estate. l Conduct offshore oil and natural gas lease sales to the maximum extent permitted under the 2023–2028 lease program,34 with the possibility to move forward under a previously studied but unselected plan alternative.35 l Develop immediately and finalize a new five-year plan, while working with Congress to reform the OCSLA by eliminating five-year plans in favor of rolling or quarterly lease sales. l Review all resource management plans finalized in the previous four years and, when necessary, select studied alternatives to restore the multi-use concept enshrined in FLPMA and to eliminate management decisions that advance the 30 by 30 agenda. l Set rents, royalty rates, and bonding requirements to no higher than what is required under the Inflation Reduction Act.36 l Comply with the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) and the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 to establish a competitive leasing and development program in the Coastal Plain, an area of Alaska that was set aside by Congress specifically for future oil and gas exploration and development. It is often referred to as the “Section 1002 Area” after the section of ANILCA that excludes the area from Arctic National Wildlife Refuge’s wilderness designation.37 l Conclude the programmatic review of the coal leasing program, and work with the congressional delegations and governors of Wyoming and Montana to restart the program immediately.38 l Abandon withdrawals of lands from leasing in the Thompson Divide of the White River National Forest, Colorado; the 10-mile buffer around Chaco Cultural Historic National Park in New Mexico (restoring the compromise forged in the Arizona Wilderness Act39); and the Boundary Waters area in northern Minnesota if those withdrawals have not been completed.40 Meanwhile, revisit associated leases and permits for energy and mineral production in these areas in consultation with state elected officials. l Require regional offices to complete right-of-way and drilling permits within the average time it takes states in the region to complete them.

Department of Agriculture

Weak

Vector: 61%

Pages: 347-349AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on waiving cost-share requirements for wildfire remediation on National Forest System lands, whereas the Project 2025 USDA section primarily discusses nutrition assistance programs, school meals, and conservation program reforms; there is only a tangential overlap in the broader USDA domain and general conservation themes."

Key themes:USDAconservation programsfederal fundingland management

— 315 — Department of Agriculture 79. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, “WIC Data Tables,” December 9, 2022, https:// www.fns.usda.gov/pd/wic-program (accessed December 16, 2022). 80. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, “Regulations and Information on the Manufacture and Distribution of Infant Formula,” May 16, 2022, https://www.fda.gov/food/infant-formula-guidance-documents-regulatory- information/regulations-and-information-manufacture-and-distribution-infant-formula (accessed December 14, 2022). 81. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, “History of the National School Lunch Program,” January 17, 2008, https://www.fns.usda.gov/nslp/program-history (accessed December 14, 2022). 82. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, “School Breakfast Program History,” July 24, 2013, https://www.fns.usda.gov/sbp/program-history (accessed December 14, 2022), and U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, “History of the National School Lunch Program.” 83. Crystal FitzSimons, “Free School Meals for All Is the Key to Supporting Education and Health Outcomes,” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, Vol 41, No. 1 (2022), pp. 358–364, https://econpapers.repec.org/ article/wlyjpamgt/v_3a41_3ay_3a2022_3ai_3a1_3ap_3a358-364.htm (accessed December 14, 2022). 84. Jonathan Butcher and Vijay Menon, “Returning to the Intent of Government School Meals: Helping Students in Need,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 3399, March 22, 2019, https://www.heritage.org/sites/ default/files/2019-03/BG3399.pdf. 85. Daren Bakst and Jonathan Butcher, “A Critical Fix to the Federal Overreach on School Meals,” Heritage Foundation Issue Brief No. 4976, July 11, 2019, https://www.heritage.org/hunger-and-food-programs/report/ critical-fix-the-federal-overreach-school-meals. 86. Ibid., and U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, “Community Eligibility Provision,” April 19, 2019, https://www.fns.usda.gov/cn/community-eligibility-provision (accessed December 16, 2022). 87. See Payment Accuracy, https://www.paymentaccuracy.gov/ (accessed December 16, 2022). 88. Payment Accuracy, “Payment Integrity Scorecard,” https://www.cfo.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/Q3/ FNS%20National%20School%20Lunch%20Program%20(NSLP)%20Payments%20Integrity%20Scorecard%20 FY%202022%20Q3.pdf (accessed December 14, 2022). 89. U.S. Government Accountability Office, “School Meals Programs: USDA Has Reported Taking Some Steps to Reduce Improper Payments But Should Comprehensively Assess Fraud Risks,” GAO–19–389, May 21, 2022, https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-19-389 (accessed December 14, 2022). 90. Payment Accuracy, “Payment Integrity Scorecard.” 91. White House, “Fact Sheet: The American Families Plan,” April 28, 2021, https://www.whitehouse.gov/ briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/04/28/fact-sheet-the-american-families-plan/ (accessed December 14, 2022). 92. Universal School Meals Program Act of 2021, S. 1530, 117th Cong., 1st Sess., https://www.congress.gov/ bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/1530 (accessed December 14, 2022). 93. See, for example, U.S. Department of Agriculture, “Find Meals for Kids When Schools Are Closed,” Food and Nutrition Service, September 22, 2022, https://www.fns.usda.gov/meals4kids (accessed December 16, 2022), and U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, “Seamless Summer and Other Options for School,” July 16, 2013, https://www.fns.usda.gov/sfsp/seamless-summer-and-other-options-schools (accessed December 16, 2022). 94. Tom Driscoll, “From the Field: Farmers Are the Original Conservationists,” National Farmers Union, August 30, 2017, https://nfu.org/2017/08/30/from-the-field-farmers-are-the-original-conservationists/ (accessed December 16, 2022). 95. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency, “Conservation Programs,” https://www.fsa.usda.gov/ programs-and-services/conservation-programs/index (accessed December 16, 2022), and U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, “Programs and Initiatives,” https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/ programs-initiatives (accessed December 16, 2022). 96. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency, “Conservation Reserve Program: About the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP),” https://www.fsa.usda.gov/programs-and-services/conservation- programs/conservation-reserve-program/ (accessed December 16, 2022). — 316 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 97. American Bakers Association et al., letter to U.S. Department of Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, March 23, 2022, https://www.dropbox.com/s/yfyv04ilkom11zd/USDA%20Letter%20to%20Secretary%20Vilsack%20on%20 Tools%20to%20Address%20Global%20Commodity%20Supply%20Challenges%203.23.22_.pdf?dl=0 (accessed December 15, 2022). It is also necessary to increase food production to mitigate high food inflation. Approximately 25 percent of idled land is considered prime farmland. Therefore, one-quarter of idled land is merely idling, not producing food—and this does not include other land that may viably be used for food production. The Conservation Reserve Program should be eliminated. There are also two issues connected to property rights and fairness that should be addressed: challenging NRCS determinations and problems with USDA easements. To be eligible for many USDA programs, farmers must comply with certain conservation provisions enforced by NRCS. Conservation compliance of wetlands and highly erodible lands consist of federal restrictions that prevent farmers from using parts of their property. If farmers plant crops or modify the areas federal officials deem protected, farmers can lose all access to USDA programs and support. For farmers, there are real, practical concerns to challenging NRCS determinations, including the time and costs of challenging the federal bureaucracy. NRCS is empowered to declare areas wetlands and highly erodible areas, which are therefore off limits for farming. If these wetland-or-erodible-declared areas are used in a manner deemed unacceptable by federal officials, NRCS may revoke access to federal resources and subsidies by making technical determinations that carry potential penalties. There must be a fair and reasonable process for farmers to challenge such actions. See Daren Bakst, “Food Price Inflation Continues to Worsen. Here’s What Should Be Done About It,” The Daily Signal, April 25, 2022, https:// www.dailysignal.com/2022/04/25/food-price-inflation-continuing-to-worsen-heres-what-should-be-done- about-it/ (accessed December 15, 2022); American Bakers Association et.al., letter to Vilsack; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, “Conservation Compliance Appeals Process,” https://www. nrcs.usda.gov/getting-assistance/compliance/conservation-compliance-appeals-process (accessed December 15, 2022); and Chris Bennett, “Regulatory Hell: Farmer and Veteran Wins 10-Year Wetlands Fight With Government,” AG Web, August 30, 2021, https://www.agweb.com/news/crops/crop-production/regulatory-hell-farmer-and- veteran-wins-10-year-wetlands-fight (accessed December 15, 2022). 98. Fortunately, there are already resources available to help states establish their own wetlands conservation programs. One particular example, the American Legislative Exchange Council’s Wetlands Mapping and Protection Act model policy, is available for states to define the procedures, guidelines, and administration of wetlands programs. American Legislative Exchange Council, “Wetlands Mapping and Protection Act,” November 16, 2017, https://alec.org/model-policy/wetlands-mapping-and-protection-act/ (accessed December 16, 2022). The new Administration should focus on best practices instead of imposing prescriptive federal practices. It should support the policies contained within the “NRCS Wetland Compliance and Appeals Reform Act” and modify NRCS compliance rules to protect farmers and ranchers by adding protections against regulatory overreach—such as banning the practice of re-engaging farmers in new technical determinations appeals processes for the same areas of their farms. See NRCS Wetland Compliance and Appeals Reform Act, S. 4931, 117th Cong., 2nd Sess., https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/4931?s=1&r=8 (accessed December 15, 2022). 99. Ibid 100. See, for example, Daren Bakst and Jeremy Dalrymple, “Reducing Federal Barriers for the Sale of Meat,” Heritage Foundation Issue Brief No. 5078, June 1, 2020, https://www.heritage.org/agriculture/report/ reducing-federal-barriers-the-sale-meat, and U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food Safety and Inspection Service, “State Inspection Programs,” updated January 12, 2023, https://www.fsis.usda.gov/inspection/state- inspection-programs (accessed December 15, 2022). 101. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food Safety and Inspection Service, “Cooperative Interstate Shipping Program,” September 7, 2022, https://www.fsis.usda.gov/inspection/state-inspection-programs/cooperative- interstate-shipping-program (accessed December 15, 2022). 102. U.S. Department of Agriculture, “State Inspection Programs.” 103. The Senate bill removes obstacles for both meat and poultry. The House version does not appear to cover poultry. New Markets for State-Inspected Meat and Poultry Act of 2021, S. 107, 117th Cong., 1st Sess., https:// www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/107#:~:text=This%20bill%20allows%20meat%20and,be%20 sold%20in%20interstate%20commerce (accessed December 15, 2022), and Expanding Markets for State- Inspected Meat Processors Act of 2021, H.R. 1998, 117th Cong., 1st Sess., https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th- congress/house-bill/1998 (accessed December 15, 2022).

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. Luján, Ben Ray

Mining Waste, Fraud, and Abuse Prevention Act of 2025

119/s/859

New Mexico Land Grant-Mercedes Historical or Traditional Use Cooperation and Coordination Act

119/s/1363

Protecting Indian Water Rights Settlements Act of 2026

119/s/4890

Responsible Wildland Fire Recovery Act