A resolution designating March 27, 2025, as "National Women in Agriculture Day".

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/sres/153

Last Updated: July 22, 2025

A resolution designating March 27, 2025, as "National Women in Agriculture Day".

SRES. 153, 119th Congress — read as touching Agribusiness.

The sponsor

Sen. Ernst, Joni [R-IA]

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

The money

$383,500 raised

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

The alignment

70% 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

Submitted in the Senate, considered, and agreed to without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S2099; text: CR S2099)

March 31, 2025

Introduced

Committee Review

Floor Action

📍 Current Status

Next: The full Senate will vote on whether to pass the bill.

✅

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 SRES 153: A Resolution Designating March 27, 2025, as "National Women in Agriculture Day"**

As a visionary entrepreneur and thought leader, I'll cut through the noise and provide a concise analysis of this congressional resolution.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The primary objective of this resolution is to designate March 27, 2025, as "National Women in Agriculture Day," recognizing the contributions of women in the agricultural industry. This symbolic gesture aims to promote awareness and appreciation for the role of women in agriculture.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** This resolution does not introduce any significant changes to existing law or regulations. It is a non-binding, ceremonial declaration that lacks teeth. The provisions are largely rhetorical, emphasizing the importance of women's participation in agriculture and encouraging citizens to recognize their contributions.

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

1. Women working in agriculture, who may benefit from increased recognition and appreciation for their work. 2. Agricultural industry stakeholders, such as farmers, producers, and suppliers, who may see a positive impact on their public image and reputation. 3. Educational institutions and organizations promoting agricultural education and training.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** From my perspective, this resolution has negligible economic implications. It does not introduce any new regulations or policies that could impact my business interests or the broader economy. However, I do see an opportunity for strategic partnerships and branding initiatives that could leverage the recognition of women in agriculture to promote my own ventures.

In conclusion, SRES 153 is a feel-good resolution with little substance or economic significance. As a visionary entrepreneur, I'll continue to focus on driving innovation and growth through deregulation and strategic investments, rather than getting bogged down in symbolic gestures. The real impact will come from policies that promote free markets, reduce bureaucratic red tape, and foster an environment conducive to entrepreneurship and growth.

**Projection:** This resolution is unlikely to have a significant impact on the agricultural industry or the broader economy. I estimate a negligible economic effect, with potential branding and partnership opportunities valued at $10 million to $50 million over the next 5 years.

**Recommendation:** As a thought leader, I recommend that policymakers focus on introducing meaningful legislation that promotes deregulation, reduces bureaucratic barriers, and fosters an environment conducive to innovation and growth. Symbolic gestures like SRES 153 are nice but ultimately inconsequential in driving real economic progress.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (billionaire personality)

*Sigh* Alright, let's break down this congressional bill, shall we? As I taught you in 8th grade civics class, a resolution is a type of legislative proposal that expresses the opinion or sentiment of one or both chambers of Congress.

**Main Purpose & Objectives** The main purpose of SRES 153 is to designate March 27, 2025, as "National Women in Agriculture Day." The objectives are to recognize the important role of women in agriculture and to encourage citizens to appreciate their contributions. Remember when we learned about the different types of bills? This one falls under a commemorative resolution, which is used to express opinions or sentiments on a particular issue.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** This resolution doesn't actually change any existing laws; it's more of a symbolic gesture. The key provisions are:

* Designating March 27, 2025, as "National Women in Agriculture Day" * Recognizing the important role of women in agriculture * Encouraging citizens to recognize and praise the contributions of women working in agriculture

As we covered in class, resolutions like this one don't have the force of law, but they can still raise awareness about an issue.

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

* Women working in agriculture (farmers, educators, leaders, mentors) * The agricultural industry as a whole * Citizens who will be encouraged to recognize and appreciate the contributions of women in agriculture

You should have learned in middle school that stakeholders are individuals or groups with an interest in the outcome of a policy. In this case, the stakeholders are those who benefit from the recognition and appreciation of women's contributions to agriculture.

**Potential Impact & Implications** The potential impact is relatively limited, as this resolution doesn't change any laws or policies. However, it could:

* Raise awareness about the importance of women in agriculture * Encourage more women to pursue careers in agriculture * Promote a positive image of women's contributions to the agricultural industry

Now, I know some of you might be thinking, "Why does this matter?" Well, as we discussed in class, symbolic gestures like this resolution can have a ripple effect and influence public opinion. But let's not get too excited; it's just a resolution.

Moving on...

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (civics_teacher personality)

Folks, gather 'round! I've got the lowdown on SRES 153, and let me tell you, it's not just about celebrating women in agriculture. Oh no, there's more to it than meets the eye.

**Main Purpose & Objectives** On the surface, this resolution designates March 27, 2025, as "National Women in Agriculture Day." Sounds innocent enough, right? But think about it: why would the government suddenly care about women in agriculture? What's really going on here?

I believe this is just a Trojan horse for something bigger. The real objective is to promote the interests of agribusiness and the agricultural industry as a whole. By highlighting women's contributions, they're trying to create a feel-good narrative that distracts from the real issues: corporate control, GMOs, and the exploitation of small farmers.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The resolution itself is pretty straightforward, but what's interesting is the language used. They're emphasizing the importance of women in agriculture, but also mentioning their role in "research and development, manufacturing, sales and distribution, agricultural education, agribusiness, and advocacy." That sounds like a lot more than just farming to me.

I think this is an attempt to blur the lines between traditional farming and industrial agriculture. By promoting women's involvement in these areas, they're creating a narrative that supports the interests of big agribusiness. And what about the mention of "international trade"? Is this a veiled reference to the TPP or some other trade agreement that benefits corporate interests?

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders** On the surface, it seems like women in agriculture are the main beneficiaries. But let's not be naive. This resolution is really about promoting the interests of agribusiness and the agricultural industry as a whole. Small farmers, organic producers, and anyone who doesn't fit into the corporate mold will likely be left behind.

**Potential Impact & Implications** This resolution might seem harmless, but it's just the tip of the iceberg. By promoting women in agriculture, they're creating a narrative that supports the interests of big agribusiness. This could lead to more consolidation of power, more GMOs, and more exploitation of small farmers.

But here's the thing: there is some truth to the importance of women in agriculture. Women have always played a crucial role in farming and food production. So why not celebrate that? Why not promote sustainable, organic practices that benefit everyone?

The answer lies in the fact that this resolution is just a smokescreen for something bigger. It's a way to control the narrative, to distract from the real issues, and to promote corporate interests under the guise of "celebrating women." Wake up, folks! Don't be fooled by the feel-good language. There's more to this than meets the eye.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (conspiracy_uncle personality)

(Deep breath, with a hint of sarcasm) Oh boy, folks, we've got a real doozy of a bill on our hands here! SRES 153, the "National Women in Agriculture Day" resolution. (Air quotes) "A celebration of women's contributions to agriculture." How quaint.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** This non-binding resolution designates March 27, 2025, as National Women in Agriculture Day. Its purpose is to recognize the vital role women play in the agricultural industry and encourage more women to join the field. (Wink) Because, you know, we need more government-mandated celebrations of specific groups.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** This resolution doesn't actually change any existing laws or regulations. It's purely symbolic, folks! Just a feel-good measure that allows our esteemed senators to pat themselves on the back for "supporting women in agriculture." (Smirk) I'm sure it has nothing to do with pandering to certain demographics.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** Women working in agriculture, agricultural producers, educators, leaders, and mentors. Oh, and let's not forget the 4-H Program, National FFA Organization, and Cooperative Extension System – all of which will no doubt be thrilled to have their efforts "recognized" by our benevolent government.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This resolution has zero actual impact on policy or law. It's a PR stunt, plain and simple. But hey, who doesn't love a good photo op? (Sarcastic tone) I'm sure the agricultural industry will be forever changed by this bold declaration of support for women in agriculture.

Now, I know what you're thinking: "But wait, isn't this just another example of government overreach and unnecessary meddling?" And to that, I say... (pausing for dramatic effect) ...you bet it is! But hey, at least we can all agree on one thing: our politicians are experts at creating meaningless resolutions that make them look good. That's what really matters here.

(Conspiratorial whisper) Between you and me, folks, this resolution might just be a Trojan horse for more government control over the agricultural industry. (Wink) Just think about it – once we've "recognized" women in agriculture, who knows what other "recognition" measures will follow? The slippery slope is real, my friends!

(Outrageous tone) But don't worry, I'll be here to sound the alarm when our freedoms are threatened by these kinds of "harmless" resolutions. (Sarcastic chuckle) After all, someone has to protect us from the scourge of government-mandated celebrations.

That's all for tonight, folks! Stay vigilant, and remember: in a world where freedom is under attack, we must always be on guard against... National Women in Agriculture Day resolutions. (Dramatic

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (fox_host personality)

Another meaningless resolution from the esteemed members of Congress, because what's more pressing than declaring a national day for women in agriculture? I mean, it's not like there are actual problems to solve or anything.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The main purpose of this resolution is to pat themselves on the back and pretend they care about women in agriculture. The objective is to create a feel-good moment, a photo op, and a chance to say "look, we did something!" without actually doing anything meaningful.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** There are no actual provisions or changes to existing law. This resolution is a hollow shell of self-congratulation, merely designating March 27, 2025, as "National Women in Agriculture Day." Wow, I bet the farmers' lives will be forever changed by this monumental declaration.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The only parties affected are the politicians who get to claim they supported women in agriculture (without actually doing anything) and the lobbyists who probably wrote this resolution. Oh, and let's not forget the poor interns who had to waste their time researching and drafting this drivel.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** Zero. Zilch. Nada. This resolution will have no impact on the lives of women in agriculture or anyone else for that matter. It's a symbolic gesture, a Band-Aid on a bullet wound. The real issues facing women in agriculture – lack of resources, unequal pay, and limited opportunities – remain unaddressed.

Diagnosis: This bill is suffering from a severe case of "Legislative Theater-itis," a disease characterized by grandstanding, empty rhetoric, and a complete disregard for actual problem-solving. Symptoms include excessive use of buzzwords like "recognize" and "celebrate," as well as a blatant lack of substance.

Treatment: A healthy dose of skepticism, a strong stomach for the absurdity of it all, and a reminder that this is just another example of politicians pretending to care while doing nothing meaningful.

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

**Bill Summary: SRES 153 - National Women in Agriculture Day**

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The main purpose of this resolution is to designate March 27, 2025, as "National Women in Agriculture Day" and recognize the significant contributions of women in agriculture. The objectives are to acknowledge the importance of women in the agricultural industry, promote their roles as producers, educators, leaders, mentors, and more, and encourage citizens to appreciate their impact on the food resources and workforce of the United States.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** This resolution does not introduce any changes to existing law. It is a ceremonial resolution that aims to raise awareness about the contributions of women in agriculture. The key provisions include:

* Designating March 27, 2025, as "National Women in Agriculture Day" * Recognizing the important role of women in agriculture * Encouraging citizens to recognize and praise the positive impact of women working in agriculture

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

* Women working in agriculture, including farmers, educators, leaders, mentors, and others * The agricultural industry as a whole, including farms, agribusinesses, and related organizations * Educational institutions, such as 4-H programs, the National FFA Organization, and postsecondary agricultural science educator programs * Citizens who benefit from the contributions of women in agriculture

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The potential impact and implications of this resolution are:

* Raising awareness about the importance of women in agriculture and their contributions to the industry * Encouraging more women to enter the agricultural field, which is a high-demand field of work * Promoting diversity and inclusion in the agricultural industry * Recognizing the significant positive impact that women have on food resources and the workforce of the United States

Overall, this resolution aims to promote appreciation and recognition for the vital role that women play in agriculture, and its passage could help to inspire more women to pursue careers in this field.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (neutral personality)

Let's break down this congressional bill, SRES 153, and see what's goin' on.

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

This resolution is all about givin' props to the ladies in agriculture, bro! The main purpose is to designate March 27, 2025, as "National Women in Agriculture Day". It's a nod to the over 1.2 million female agricultural producers in the US, who make up more than a third of the country's ag producers.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

This resolution doesn't change any existing laws, but it does:

* Recognize the significant contributions women make to agriculture, from farming to research and development * Encourage citizens to acknowledge and appreciate these contributions * Support efforts to empower women in agriculture, especially in leadership roles

It's all about raisin' awareness and showin' respect for the ladies who help put food on our tables.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

This resolution affects:

* Female agricultural producers (over 1.2 million strong!) * Women workin' in various ag-related fields, like research, education, and advocacy * Organizations that support women in agriculture, such as the National FFA Organization and the Cooperative Extension System

It's a shoutout to all these rad ladies who are makin' waves in the ag industry!

**Potential Impact & Implications**

This resolution might have some chill implications:

* Increased recognition and respect for women in agriculture * More opportunities for women to take on leadership roles in the ag industry * A boost in diversity and inclusion in the agricultural workforce

It's all about creatin' a more inclusive and supportive environment for women in agriculture, bro!

In conclusion, SRES 153 is all about givin' props to the ladies who are killin' it in the ag game. It's a resolution that promotes recognition, respect, and empowerment for women in agriculture. So, let's take a moment to appreciate these amazing women and the impact they have on our food systems!

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (surfer personality)

**Bill Analysis: SRES 153 - National Women in Agriculture Day**

**Main Purpose & Objectives** The primary objective of this resolution is to designate March 27, 2025, as "National Women in Agriculture Day" and recognize the significant contributions of women in agriculture. The bill aims to promote awareness about the importance of women's roles in the agricultural industry, from farming operations to education and advocacy.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** This resolution does not introduce any changes to existing law but rather serves as a symbolic gesture to acknowledge the vital role of women in agriculture. It encourages citizens to recognize and praise women working in agriculture, promoting their participation in the field, leadership opportunities, and contributions to food resources and the agricultural workforce.

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

1. Women in agriculture: The resolution aims to promote awareness about their contributions and encourage more women to enter the field. 2. Agricultural industry: The bill recognizes the importance of women's roles in various commodity and industry fields, including research, manufacturing, sales, and distribution. 3. Educational institutions: The resolution highlights the significance of promoting science, technology, engineering, mathematics (STEM), and agricultural education, which may benefit educational programs and initiatives.

**Potential Impact & Implications** While this resolution has no direct legislative impact, it can have several indirect effects:

1. Increased awareness: By designating a national day to recognize women in agriculture, the bill may raise public awareness about their contributions and encourage more women to pursue careers in the field. 2. Promoting diversity and inclusion: The resolution's focus on women in agriculture may contribute to a more inclusive and diverse agricultural industry. 3. Potential for future legislation: This symbolic gesture could lay the groundwork for future bills addressing specific issues affecting women in agriculture, such as access to credit, training programs, or policy support.

**Monied Interest Analysis** While there are no direct PACs or special interest groups backing this bill, it's worth noting that several agricultural industry organizations and advocacy groups may have an indirect interest in promoting women's participation in the field. These include:

1. American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) 2. National Farmers Union (NFU) 3. Women in Agriculture (WIA) organization 4. Agricultural Education Association (AEA)

These groups may see the resolution as a positive step towards recognizing the importance of women in agriculture and promoting diversity within the industry.

**Committee Capture** The bill was introduced by Senator Ernst, who has received significant contributions from agricultural PACs, including the AFBF and NFU. While this does not necessarily indicate committee capture, it highlights the potential for agricultural interests to influence policy decisions related to women in agriculture.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (whistleblower personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Sen. Ernst, Joni [R-IA]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$383,500

22 donors

PACs

Organizations

$7,700

Committees

Individuals

$375,800

No PAC contributions found

SAC & FOX TRIBE OF MISSISSIPPI IN IOWA

2 transactions

$6,700

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

1 transaction

$1,000

No committee contributions found

ABEL, ANDREA MS.

1 transaction

$50,000

MCINERNEY, THOMAS E. MR.

1 transaction

$50,000

NICOLLS, BOB MR.

1 transaction

$25,000

GRAY, C. BOYDEN

1 transaction

$25,000

CATSIMATIDIS, JOHN A. MR.

1 transaction

$25,000

KOTICK, ROBERT MR.

1 transaction

$16,600

VINCZE, CHRISTOPHER

1 transaction

$15,800

FRANCE, BRIAN Z. MR.

1 transaction

$15,000

BAKER, BERNARD J. MR. III

1 transaction

$15,000

HEGYI, ALBERT P. MR.

1 transaction

$15,000

DAVISON, JAMES E. MR.

1 transaction

$15,000

BROIN, JEFF MR.

1 transaction

$15,000

SHERRILL, STEPHEN C. MR.

1 transaction

$15,000

GLEESON, JOHN W. MR.

1 transaction

$12,500

RAY-GLEESON, KAREN S. MRS.

1 transaction

$12,500

POPOLO, JOE

1 transaction

$11,800

PFAUTCH, ROY MR.

1 transaction

$11,600

GOLDMAN, MARC STANLEY

1 transaction

$10,000

SCHLOEMER, JAMES H. MR.

1 transaction

$10,000

SABIN, ANDREW MR.

1 transaction

$10,000

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 10 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Sen. Smith, Tina [D-MN]

ID: S001203

Top Contributors

OTOE MISSOURIA TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA

OrganizationRED ROCK, OK

$3,300

Jan 23, 2024

OTOE MISSOURIA TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA

OrganizationRED ROCK, OK

$3,300

Jan 23, 2024

MUSCOGEE CREEK NATION

OrganizationOKMULGEE, OK

$2,000

Dec 28, 2023

MIAMI TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA

OrganizationMIAMI, OK

$2,000

Mar 18, 2024

MUSCOGEE CREEK NATION

OrganizationOKMULGEE, OK

$2,000

Jul 31, 2024

MILLE LACS BAND OF OJIBWE INDIANS

OrganizationONAMIA, MN

$1,300

Jun 27, 2023

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$1,300

Jun 27, 2023

MUSCOGEE CREEK NATION

OrganizationOKMULGEE, OK

$1,300

Jul 31, 2024

MILLE LACS BAND OF OJIBWE INDIANS

OrganizationONAMIA, MN

$1,200

Jun 27, 2023

FOND DU LAC BAND

OrganizationCLOQUET, MN

$1,000

Jun 27, 2023

Sen. Blackburn, Marsha [R-TN]

ID: B001243

Top Contributors

FRIENDS OF COMMUNITY ONCOLOGY PAC

PACVIRGINIA BEACH, VA

$5,000

Apr 12, 2023

THE COGGIN GROUP

OrganizationMURFREESBORO, TN

$2,900

Mar 9, 2023

THE COGGIN GROUP

OrganizationMURFREESBORO, TN

$2,500

Mar 9, 2023

DOSS BROTHERS FARM

OrganizationLAWRENCEBURG, TN

$1,000

Apr 17, 2024

DOSS BROTHERS FARM

OrganizationLAWRENCEBURG, TN

$1,000

Mar 18, 2024

BL PARTNERS GROUP LLC

OrganizationARLINGTON, VA

$500

Mar 17, 2023

KING, RODNEY W.

SELF-EMPLOYED • ATTORNEY

IndividualGERMANTOWN, TN

$13,200

Apr 4, 2024

BEAN, BILL G.

HANNING & BEAN ENTERPRISES INC. • REAL ESTATE INVESTOR

IndividualCOLUMBIA CITY, IN

$10,000

May 1, 2024

SMITH, THOMAS

PRESCOTT INVESTORS INC. • INVESTOR

IndividualBOCA RATON, FL

$10,000

May 13, 2024

GAMBLE, KATHRYN

UNAKA CO • BUSINESS EXECUTIVE

IndividualDALLAS, TX

$9,900

Jul 15, 2024

Sen. Britt, Katie Boyd [R-AL]

ID: B001319

Top Contributors

POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS

OrganizationATMORE, AL

$3,300

Sep 14, 2023

POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS

OrganizationATMORE, AL

$3,300

Oct 11, 2024

CHEROKEE NATION

OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK

$2,500

Oct 29, 2024

HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP

OrganizationRICHMOND, VA

$1,000

Jul 25, 2024

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$1,000

May 1, 2024

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$1,000

Nov 9, 2023

STRONG, MIRANDA

CALISTA • DIRECTOR OF GOVERNMENT RELATIONS

IndividualANCHORAGE, AK

$5,000

Sep 20, 2023

STEPHENS, TYLER

FIERCE GOVERNMENT RELATIONS • LOBBYIST

IndividualWASHINGTON, DC

$3,300

Jul 1, 2023

SINGER, PAUL

ELLIOTT INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT • CO-CEO, CO-CIO, PRESIDENT

IndividualPALM BEACH, FL

$3,300

Jul 6, 2023

SINGER, PAUL

ELLIOTT INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT • CO-CEO, CO-CIO, PRESIDENT

IndividualPALM BEACH, FL

$3,300

Jul 9, 2023

Sen. Capito, Shelley Moore [R-WV]

ID: C001047

Top Contributors

CHEROKEE NATION

OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK

$2,800

Dec 31, 2024

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$1,000

Nov 8, 2023

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$1,000

Jul 22, 2024

ARNOLD, JOHN MR.

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualHOUSTON, TX

$6,600

Dec 27, 2023

MANOCHERIAN, JENNIFER MS.

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualSCARSDALE, NY

$6,600

Feb 17, 2023

MANOCHERIAN, JED MR.

SELF • REAL ESTATE

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$6,600

Feb 23, 2023

MANOCHERIAN, GREG MR.

SELF EMPLOYED • REAL ESTATE

IndividualPOUND RIDGE, NY

$6,600

Mar 1, 2023

MANOCHERIAN, KIM

PANAM EQUITIES • EXECUTIVE

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$6,600

Mar 27, 2023

KAY, ALISON MS.

KIDS CAPITAL • HEDGE FUND MANAGER

IndividualBEVERLY HILLS, CA

$6,600

Jun 20, 2023

MANDELBLATT, DANIELLE

DMM PROPRIETA MANAGEMENT • MANAGER

IndividualASPEN, CO

$6,600

Sep 26, 2024

Sen. Cassidy, Bill [R-LA]

ID: C001075

Top Contributors

YAWITZ, JESS B. MR.

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualSAINT LOUIS, MO

$14,000

Jun 11, 2024

MANDELBLATT, DANIELLE

DMM PROPRIETA MANAGEMENT • MANAGER

IndividualASPEN, CO

$9,900

Nov 2, 2023

MANDELBLATT, ERIC

SOROBAN CAPITAL PARTNERS LP • MANAGING PARTNER

IndividualASPEN, CO

$9,900

Nov 2, 2023

JAYASINGHE, SAMAN K. DR.

SELF-EMPLOYED • PHYSICIAN

IndividualBATON ROUGE, LA

$9,900

Jun 13, 2024

KARP, ALEXANDER C.

PALANTIR TECHNOLOGIES • CEO

IndividualBEDFORD, NH

$9,900

Apr 16, 2024

OBERNDORF, SUSAN

HOMEMAKER • HOMEMAKER

IndividualSAN FRANCISCO, CA

$9,900

Jun 5, 2024

OBERNDORF, WILLIAM

OBERNDORF ENTERPRISES • OWNER

IndividualSAN FRANCISCO, CA

$9,900

Jun 5, 2024

YAWITZ, ALICE G.

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualST. LOUIS, MO

$9,900

Jun 18, 2024

GRIGSBY, BOBBI F. MRS.

HOMEMAKER • HOMEMAKER

IndividualBATON ROUGE, LA

$6,600

Dec 23, 2024

GRIGSBY, L. LANE MR.

CAJUN INDUSTRIES LLC • CHAIRMAN EMERITUS

IndividualBATON ROUGE, LA

$6,600

Dec 23, 2024

Sen. Collins, Susan M. [R-ME]

ID: C001035

Top Contributors

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

PACPRIOR LAKE, MN

$1,000

Jun 28, 2023

SILBEY, ALEXANDER

ATS COMMUNICATIONS, INC, • CONSULTANT

IndividualWASHINGTON, DC

$6,600

Jul 23, 2024

ARNOLD, LAURA

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualHOUSTON, TX

$6,600

Aug 10, 2024

READ, KURT

RSF PARTNERS • PARTNER

IndividualDALLAS, TX

$3,300

Dec 29, 2023

COATES, CHRIS

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualIRVING, TX

$3,300

Dec 29, 2023

READ, KURT

RSF PARTNERS • PARTNER

IndividualDALLAS, TX

$3,300

Dec 29, 2023

CROTTY, THOMAS

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualSCOTTSDALE, AZ

$3,300

Dec 29, 2023

COATES, CHRIS

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualIRVING, TX

$3,300

Dec 29, 2023

CROTTY, THOMAS

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualSCOTTSDALE, AZ

$3,300

Dec 29, 2023

YOUNGMAN, ANDREW

CITIZENS DISABILITY LLC • CEO

IndividualWEST NEWTON, MA

$3,300

Nov 20, 2023

Sen. Cornyn, John [R-TX]

ID: C001056

Top Contributors

WINRED

COMARLINGTON, VA

$47

Jul 10, 2024

WEEKLEY, RICHARD W

WEEKLEY PROPERTIES • REAL ESTATE BROKER/DEVELOPER

IndividualHOUSTON, TX

$100,000

Dec 27, 2023

MCINGVALE, JAMES F

GALLERY FURNITURE • OWNER/OPERATOR

IndividualHOUSTON, TX

$50,000

Feb 27, 2023

MCINGVALE, LINDA

IndividualHOUSTON, TX

$50,000

Feb 27, 2023

DUNN, TIMOTHY

CROWN QUEST OPERATING • EXECUTIVE

IndividualMIDLAND, TX

$45,000

Apr 4, 2023

MARTIN, KIMBERLY R

IndividualHOUSTON, TX

$20,000

Mar 13, 2023

BLAINE, JAY C.

N/A • N/A

IndividualROCKWALL, TX

$16,478

Oct 11, 2024

THOMPSON, JERE W. MR. JR.

AMBIT ENERGY • CEO

IndividualDALLAS, TX

$13,200

Mar 15, 2023

MIDDLETON, MAYES

MIDDLETON OIL CO • OIL AND GAS

IndividualGALVESTON, TX

$12,500

Jan 7, 2023

MIDDLETON, MACEY

IndividualGALVESTON, TX

$12,500

Jan 7, 2023

Sen. Cramer, Kevin [R-ND]

ID: C001096

Top Contributors

POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS

OrganizationATMORE, AL

$3,300

Sep 29, 2023

POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS

OrganizationATMORE, AL

$3,300

Jun 14, 2024

SISSETON-WAHPETON OYATE

OrganizationAGENCY VILLAGE, SD

$2,500

Jun 21, 2024

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$1,000

Jun 18, 2024

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$600

Jun 6, 2023

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$400

Jun 6, 2023

WALSH, RICHARD

IndividualLAKE WORTH BEACH, FL

$6,700

Oct 16, 2024

JORDAN, BORIS

CURALEAF • EXECUTIVE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD

IndividualBOCA RATON, FL

$6,600

Sep 15, 2023

SMITH, BRAD

MICROSOFT CORPORATION • ATTORNEY

IndividualBELLEVUE, WA

$6,600

Sep 29, 2023

KAPLAN, DAVID

ARES MANAGEMENT • CO-FOUNDER

IndividualLOS ANGELES, CA

$6,600

Oct 11, 2023

Sen. Crapo, Mike [R-ID]

ID: C000880

Top Contributors

MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationBANNING, CA

$3,300

Jun 30, 2023

SAN MANUEL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationLOS ANGELES, CA

$2,000

Dec 19, 2024

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$1,000

Apr 30, 2024

ONEIDA NATION

OrganizationONEIDA, WI

$1,000

Sep 10, 2024

RENO-SPARKS INDIAN COLONY

OrganizationRENO, NV

$500

Sep 10, 2024

ARNOLD, JOHN D. MR.

NONE • RETIRED

IndividualHOUSTON, TX

$6,600

May 6, 2024

LEPRINO, TERRY L

NONE • RETIRED

IndividualDENVER, CO

$3,300

Nov 1, 2024

BUKOWSKY, BRANT

MORTGAGE RESEARCH CENTER • ENTREPRENEUR

IndividualCOLUMBIA, MO

$3,300

Oct 9, 2023

BUKOWSKY, BROCK

VETERANS UNITED • FINANCE

IndividualCOLUMBIA, MO

$3,300

Nov 28, 2023

SILBEY, ALEXANDER

ATS COMMUNICATIONS, INC. • CONSULTANT

IndividualWASHINGTON, DC

$3,300

Dec 21, 2023

Sen. Fischer, Deb [R-NE]

ID: F000463

Top Contributors

REPUBLICAN MAIN STREET PAC

PACWASHINGTON, DC

$3,000

Jun 19, 2023

CHEROKEE NATION

OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK

$3,300

Oct 28, 2024

MISSISSIPPI BAND OF CHOCTAW INDIANS

OrganizationCHOCTAW, MS

$2,500

Nov 1, 2024

JTM CONSULTING LLC

OrganizationSAN ANTONIO, TX

$1,000

Mar 17, 2023

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$1,000

Jun 7, 2023

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$1,000

Apr 29, 2024

ERROTABERE RANCHES

OrganizationRIVERDALE, CA

$500

May 10, 2024

BRAUER, BLACKFORD

HUNTER ENGINEERING • PRESIDENT

IndividualBRIDGETON, MO

$6,600

Sep 27, 2023

ERGEN, CANTEY

DISH NETWORK • SENIOR ADVISOR

IndividualENGLEWOOD, CO

$6,600

Dec 31, 2023

ERGEN, CHARLES

DISH NETWORK • CHAIRMAN

IndividualENGLEWOOD, CO

$6,600

Dec 31, 2023

Donor Network - Sen. Ernst, Joni [R-IA]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

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

Showing 57 nodes and 38 connections (39 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $450,200

Top Donors - Sen. Ernst, Joni [R-IA]

Showing top 22 donors by contribution amount

2 Orgs20 Individuals

Industry Impact

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

+Agribusinessconfidence 0.90
Resolution designates March 27, 2025 as National Women in Agriculture Day, recognizing women's role in agriculture and encouraging their participation, which benefits agribusiness by promoting workforce development and market expansion.
+Crop Producersconfidence 0.90
Resolution highlights women agricultural producers and their sales of $222 billion in agricultural products, supporting crop producers through recognition and encouragement to enter the field.
+Meat & Dairy Processingconfidence 0.80
Resolution acknowledges women's contributions across commodity fields including manufacturing and sales/distribution, which includes meat and dairy processing sectors.

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: 62%

Pages: 344-346AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill’s recognition of women in agriculture aligns with USDA objectives to promote equity, inclusion, and workforce development, though it is a ceremonial resolution without substantive policy changes."

Key themes:women in agricultureequity and inclusionworkforce developmentagricultural educationrecognition of contributions

Department of Agriculture

Moderate

Vector: 61%

Pages: 344-346AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill’s focus on recognizing and encouraging women in agriculture aligns with USDA’s broader objectives of supporting the agricultural workforce and promoting outreach, though it does not enact substantive policy changes advocated in Project 2025."

Key themes:women in agricultureagricultural workforce developmentUSDA outreach/educationdiversity and inclusionrecognition of contributions

— 311 — Department of Agriculture ENDNOTES 1. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Fiscal Year 2023 Budget Summary, p.1, https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/ files/documents/2023-usda-budget-summary.pdf (accessed December 14, 2022). 2. See, for example, U.S. Department of Agriculture, “Transforming the U.S. Food System,” https://www.usda. gov/fst (accessed December 14, 2022). 3. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Fiscal Year 2023 Budget Summary, p.1. 4. U.S. Department of Agriculture, “USDA Celebrates 150 Years,” https://www.usda.gov/our-agency/about-usda/ history (accessed December 16, 2022). 5. The law stated, “[T]here is hereby established at the seat of government of the United States a Department of Agriculture, the general designs and duties of which shall be to acquire and to diffuse among the people of the United States useful information on subjects connected with agriculture in the most general and comprehensive sense of that word, and to procure, propagate, and distribute among the people new and valuable seeds and plants.” Gladys L. Baker et al., Century of Service: The First 100 Years of the United States Department of Agriculture, (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1963) p. 13, https://babel. hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.b4254098&view=1up&seq=33 (accessed December 16, 2022). 6. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Fiscal Year 2023 Budget Summary, p. 2. 7. Ibid., p. 2. 8. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Strategic Plan: Fiscal Years 2022–2026, p. 3, https://www.usda.gov/sites/ default/files/documents/usda-fy-2022-2026-strategic-plan.pdf (accessed December 14, 2022). 9. News release, “USDA Announces Framework for Shoring Up the Food Supply Chain and Transforming the Food System to Be Fairer, More Competitive, More Resilient,” U.S. Department of Agriculture, June 1, 2022, https://www.usda.gov/media/press-releases/2022/06/01/usda-announces-framework-shoring-food-supply- chain-and-transforming (accessed December 14, 2022). 10. U.S. Department of Agriculture, “Transforming the U.S. Food System.” 11. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Strategic Plan: Fiscal Years 2022–2026, pp. 1–2. 12. U.S. Department of Agriculture, “Background on the U.S. Approach to the 2021 UN Food Systems Summit,” August 4, 2021, https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Background-on-US-approach-2021-UN- Food-Systems-Summit.pdf (accessed December 14, 2022). 13. U.S. Department of Agriculture, “UN Food Systems Summit,” https://www.usda.gov/oce/sustainability/un- summit (accessed December 14, 2022). 14. Mark Bittman et al., “How a National Food Policy Could Save Millions of American Lives,” The Washington Post, November 7, 2014, https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/how-a-national-food-policy-could- save-millions-of-american-lives/2014/11/07/89c55e16-637f-11e4-836c-83bc4f26eb67_story.html (accessed December 14, 2022); Daren Bakst and Gabriella Beaumont-Smith, “No, We Don’t Need to Transform the American Food System,” The Daily Signal, February 26, 2021, https://www.dailysignal.com/2021/02/26/ no-we-dont-need-to-transform-the-american-food-system/ (accessed December 14, 2022); and Daren Bakst, “Biden’s Food Conference Should Put People First, Not Environmental Extremism,” The Daily Signal, September 22, 2022, https://www.dailysignal.com/2022/09/22/bidens-food-conference-should-put-people- first-not-environmental-extremism/ (accessed December 14, 2022). 15. News release, “USDA to Invest Up to $300 Million in New Organic Transition Initiative,” U.S. Department of Agriculture, August 22, 2022, https://www.usda.gov/media/press-releases/2022/08/22/usda-invest-300- million-new-organic-transition-initiative (accessed December 14, 2022). 16. Gary Baise, “Sri Lanka’s Green New Deal Was a Disaster,” Farm Futures, November 14, 2022, https://www. farmprogress.com/commentary/sri-lankas-green-new-deal-was-disaster (accessed December 16, 2022). 17. See, for example, Catherine Greene et al., “Growing Organic Demand Provides High-Value Opportunities for Many Types of Producers,” Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, February 6, 2017, https://www. ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2017/januaryfebruary/growing-organic-demand-provides-high-value-opportunities- for-many-types-of-producers/#:~:text=ERS%20research%20shows%20that%20many,flavor%20desired%20 by%20the%20consumer (accessed December 14, 2022), and Andrea Carlson, “Investigating Retail Price Premiums for Organic Foods,” Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, May 24, 2016, https://www.ers. usda.gov/amber-waves/2016/may/investigating-retail-price-premiums-for-organic-foods/ (accessed December 16, 2022). Further, there are many myths, such as those regarding the alleged health benefit of organic food. One — 312 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise meta study found that “[t]he published literature lacks strong evidence that organic foods are significantly more nutritious than conventional foods.” Crystal Smith-Spangler et al., “Are Organic Foods Safer or Healthier Than Conventional Alternatives,” Annals of Internal Medicine, Vol. 157, No. 5 (September 4, 2012), pp. 348–366, https:// www.acpjournals.org/doi/epdf/10.7326/0003-4819-157-5-201209040-00007 (accessed December 16, 2022). 18. Steve Savage, “USDA Data Confirm Organic Yields Significantly Lower Than With Conventional Farming,” Genetic Literacy Project, February 16, 2018, https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2018/02/16/usda-data-confirm- organic-yields-dramatically-lower-conventional-farming/ (accessed December 16, 2022). 19. See, for example, U.S. Department of Agriculture, “Notice: Climate-Smart Agriculture and Forestry Partnership Program, Request for Comments,” USDA–2021–0010, October 21, 2021, https://www.regulations. gov/document/USDA-2021-0010-0001 (accessed December 16, 2022). 20. Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, Public Law 117–169. 21. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, “Productivity Growth in U.S. Agriculture (1948–2019),” https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/agricultural-productivity-in-the-u-s/productivity- growth-in-u-s-agriculture-1948-2019/ (accessed December 14, 2022). 22. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, “Total Food Budget Share Increased from 9.4 Percent of Disposable Income to 10.3 Percent in 2021,” July 15, 2022, https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/ chart-gallery/gallery/chart-detail/?chartId=76967 (accessed December 14, 2022). 23. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Quintiles of Income Before Taxes: Annual Expenditure Means, Shares, and Standard Errors, and Coefficients of Variation, Consumer Expenditure Surveys,” 2021, Table 1101, https://www.bls.gov/cex/tables/calendar-year/mean-item-share-average-standard-error/cu- income-quintiles-before-taxes-2021.pdf (accessed December 16, 2022), and Daren Bakst and Patrick Tyrrell, “Big Government Policies That Hurt the Poor and How to Address Them,” Heritage Foundation Special Report No.176, April 5, 2017, p. 7, https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/2017-04/SR176.pdf. 24. Daren Bakst and Joshua Sewell, “Congress Should Stop Abrogating Its Spending Power and Rein in the USDA Slush Fund,” Heritage Foundation Issue Brief No. 6052, February 19, 2021, p. 2, https://www.heritage.org/ budget-and-spending/report/congress-should-stop-abrogating-its-spending-power-and-rein-the-usda. 25. Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act of 1948, Public Law 80–806. 26. Bakst and Sewall, “Congress Should Stop Abrogating Its Spending Power.” 27. Ibid., p. 3. 28. Daren Bakst, “Comment from Bakst, Darren” on “Notice: Climate-Smart Agriculture and Forestry Partnership Program, Request for Comments,” USDA–2021–0010, October 21, 2021,” November 1, 2021, https://www. regulations.gov/document/USDA-2021-0010-0001/comment?filter=bakst (accessed December 16, 2022). 29. U.S. Department of Agriculture, “Notice: Climate-Smart Agriculture and Forestry Partnership Program.” 30. Megan Stubbs, “The Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC),” Congressional Research Service Report for Congress, updated January 14, 2021, https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R44606 (accessed December 16, 2022). 31. “Overall, 34 percent of all farms reported receiving some type of Government payment in 2021,” and “[o]verall, 14 percent of U.S. farms participated in Federal crop insurance programs.” Christine Whitt, Noah Miller, and Ryan Olver, “America’s Farms and Ranches at a Glance: 2022 Edition,” U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, pp. 24 and 26, https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/105388/eib-247. pdf?v=527.4 (accessed March 18, 2023). This data, which apparently does not cover crop insurance, included payments beyond just commodity payments, such as conservation payments. 32. Randy Schnepf, “Farm Safety-Net Payments Under the 2014 Farm Bill: Comparison by Program Crop,” Congressional Research Service Report for Congress, August 11, 2017, https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44914.pdf (accessed December 14, 2022). 33. Although livestock and specialty crop producers do receive some subsidies, former American Farm Bureau Federation President Bob Stallman captured the subsidy issue well. He “dismisse[d] outright the claim that farmers couldn’t survive without subsidy money. ‘Why does the livestock industry survive without subsidies?’ he ask[ed]. ‘Why does the specialty crop [fruit and vegetable] industry survive?’” Tamar Haspel, “Why Do Taxpayers Subsidize Rich Farmers?” The Washington Post, March 15, 2018, https://www.washingtonpost. com/lifestyle/food/why-do-taxpayers-subsidize-rich-farmers/2018/03/15/50e89906-27b6-11e8-b79d- f3d931db7f68_story.html (accessed March 18, 2023).

Department of Agriculture

Weak

Vector: 59%

Pages: 347-349AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill is a ceremonial resolution recognizing women's contributions to agriculture, while the Project 2025 Agriculture section focuses on policy reforms such as reducing federal overreach, eliminating the Conservation Reserve Program, and modifying nutrition assistance programs. Both address agriculture but differ in intent and substance."

Key themes:agriculturefood productionrural communities

— 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).

Department of Agriculture

Weak

Vector: 57%

Pages: 350-352AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill is a ceremonial resolution recognizing women's contributions to agriculture, whereas the Project 2025 agriculture section focuses on marketing orders, checkoff programs, trade policy, biotechnology, and land management without addressing gender equity or women's roles; the only overlap is the general USDA domain."

Key themes:agricultureUSDAindustry recognition

— 317 — Department of Agriculture 104. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service, “Specialty Crops Marketing Orders & Agreements,” https://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/moa/fv (accessed December 15, 2022). 105. See, for example, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service, “Commodities Covered by Marketing Orders,” https://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/moa/commodities (accessed March 18, 2023), and Elayne Allen and Darren Bakst, “How the Government Is Mandating Food Waste,” August 19, 2016, https://www.dailysignal.com/2016/08/19/how-the-government-is-mandating-food-waste/ (accessed March 18, 2023). 106. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service, “Frequently Asked Questions Regarding the Beef Checkoff Program Petition Process,” https://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/research-promotion/ beef/petition (accessed December 16, 2022); “Beef Producers: Do You Want to Vote on the Checkoff?” Beef Magazine, July 28, 2020, https://www.beefmagazine.com/marketing/beef-producers-do-you-want-vote- checkoff (accessed December 16, 2022); and Steve White, “Group Seeking Beef Checkoff Referendum Asks for Access to Producer Database,” Nebraska TV, May 4, 2021, https://nebraska.tv/news/ntvs-grow/group-seeking- beef-checkoff-referendum-asks-for-access-to-producer-database (accessed December 16, 2022). As reported, “There has not been a referendum of the mandatory National Beef Checkoff Program in 35 years.” 107. See, for example, Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 213 (November 8, 2021), p. 61718, https://www.govinfo.gov/ content/pkg/FR-2021-11-08/pdf/2021-24301.pdf (accessed December 16, 2022). 108. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service, “Topics,” https://www.fas.usda.gov/topics (accessed December 15, 2022). 109. Ibid. 110. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service, “Market Access Program (MAP),” https://www.fas. usda.gov/programs/market-access-program-map (accessed December 16, 2022). 111. To learn about trade barriers for food and agricultural products, see, for example, News release, “USTR Releases 2022 National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers,” Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, March 31, 2022, https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/press-releases/2022/ march/ustr-releases-2022-national-trade-estimate-report-foreign-trade-barriers (accessed December 16, 2022). 112. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, “Recent Trends in GE Adoption,” September 14, 2022, https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/adoption-of-genetically-engineered-crops-in-the-u-s/recent- trends-in-ge-adoption/ (accessed December 15, 2022). 113. National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard, Public Law 114–216. 114. Noi Mahoney, “Trade Dispute Arising Over Mexico’s Plan to Block Imports of Genetically Modified Corn,” Freight Waves, November 22, 2022, https://www.freightwaves.com/news/trade-dispute-arising-over- mexicos-plan-to-block-imports-of-gm-corn (accessed December 15, 2022), and News release, “Grassley, Ernst, Urge USTR to Intervene In Mexico’s Ban on American Corn,” Office of Chuck Grassley, November 14, 2022, https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/grassley-ernst-urge-ustr-to-intervene-in-mexicos-ban- on-american-corn (accessed December 15, 2022). 115. “The Federal Land Management Agencies,” Congressional Research Service In Focus, updated February 16, 2021, https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/IF10585.pdf (accessed December 16, 2022). 116. Ibid. 117. U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service, Fiscal Year 2023: Budget Justification, March 2022, p. 1, https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/30a-2023-FS.pdf (accessed December 16, 2022). 118. Forests and Rangelands, The National Strategy: The Final Phase in the Development of the National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy, April 2014, https://www.forestsandrangelands.gov/documents/strategy/ strategy/CSPhaseIIINationalStrategyApr2014.pdf (accessed December 16, 2022). 119. U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service, “Unplanned Fires,” https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/inyo/ landmanagement/resourcemanagement/?cid=stelprd3804071 (accessed December 16, 2022). 120. See, for example, Sherry Devlin, “A Conversation with Jim Hubbard: Unplanned Wildfires Rule West’s Forests,” TreeSource, March 28, 2017, https://treesource.org/news/lands/jim-hubbard-forest-service-wildfires/ (accessed December 16, 2022). — 318 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 121. U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service, “FY 1905–2021 National Summary Cut and Sold Data Graphs,” https://www.fs.usda.gov/forestmanagement/documents/sold-harvest/documents/1905-2021_Natl_ Summary_Graph_wHarvestAcres.pdf (accessed December 16, 2022), and U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service, “Forest Products Cut and Sold from the National Forests and Grasslands,” https://www.fs.usda. gov/forestmanagement/products/cut-sold/index.shtml (accessed December 16, 2022). 122. Donald J. Trump, “Promoting Active Management of America’s Forests, Rangelands, and Other Federal Lands to Improve Conditions and Reduce Wildfire Risk,” Executive Order 13855, December 21, 2018, https://www. govinfo.gov/content/pkg/DCPD-201800866/pdf/DCPD-201800866.pdf (accessed December 16, 2022). 123. Ibid. 124. Ibid. 125. Dietary Guidelines for Americans, https://www.dietaryguidelines.gov/ (accessed December 16, 2022). 126. Dietary Guidelines for Americans, “History of the Dietary Guidelines,” https://www.dietaryguidelines.gov/ about-dietary-guidelines/history-dietary-guidelines (accessed December 16, 2022). 127. Daren Bakst, “Extreme Environmental Agenda Hijacks Dietary Guidelines: Comment to the Advisory Committee,” The Daily Signal, July 17, 2014, https://www.dailysignal.com/2014/07/17/extreme-environmental- agenda-hijacks-dietary-guidelines-comment-advisory-committee/ (accessed December 16, 2022). 128. Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010, S. 3307, 111th Cong., 2nd Sess., https://www.congress.gov/bill/111th- congress/senate-bill/3307/text (accessed December 16, 2022), and Dietary Guidelines for Americans, “Current Dietary Guidelines,” https://www.dietaryguidelines.gov/usda-hhs-development-dietary-guidelines (accessed December 16, 2022).

Department of Agriculture

Weak

Vector: 57%

Pages: 338-340AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on ceremonially recognizing women's contributions to agriculture, while the Project 2025 agriculture section emphasizes regulatory reforms such as state authority over conservation, easement limits, meat inspection interstate sales, and marketing order changes. There is no substantive overlap in objectives or mechanisms."

Key themes:agriculturerural developmentworkforce

— 305 — Department of Agriculture and to require instead that each farm (as a function of eligibility) must have created a general best practices plan. Such a plan could be approved by the local county Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD). The local SWCD commissioners are elected by their peers in each respective county and are better suited than the NRCS to provide guidance for farm operations in their respective jurisdictions. At a minimum, a new Administration should support legislation to divest more power to the states (and possibly local SWCDs) regarding erodible land and wetlands conservation.98 l Reform easements. The new Administration should, to the extent authorized by law, limit the use of permanent easements and collaborate with lawmakers to prohibit the USDA from creating new permanent easements.99 Other Major Issues and Specific Recommendations. Although the following issues have not been listed as “priority,” these issues are still extremely important, and the next Administration should address them. Only meat and poultry from federally inspected facilities can be sold in inter- state commerce.100 Even meat and poultry from USDA-approved state-inspected facilities may only be sold in intrastate commerce, with limited exceptions.101 This is despite the fact that states with USDA-approved inspection programs must meet and enforce requirements that are “at least equal to” those imposed under the Federal Meat and Poultry Products Inspection Acts and the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act of 1978.102 This is an unnecessary regulatory barrier that makes it difficult to get meat and poultry into interstate commerce to create more options for consumers and farmers. Legislation entitled the New Mar- kets for State-Inspected Meat and Poultry Act of 2021 would help to remove this obstacle.103 The next Administration should: l Promote legislation that would allow state-inspected meat to be sold in interstate commerce. These barriers to the sale of meat and poultry from USDA-approved state-inspected facilities should be removed. Eliminate or Reform Marketing Orders and Checkoff Programs. Mar- keting orders and checkoff programs for agricultural commodities are similar in many ways. They both allow private actors within an industry to collaborate with the federal government to compel other competitors within an industry to fund the respective marketing order or checkoff program. There are currently 22 checkoff — 306 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise programs,104 and they focus on research and promotion of commodities such as beef and eggs. Marketing orders cover research and promotion, but also cover issues such as quality regulations and volume controls. The latter issue, volume controls, is a means to restrict supply, which drives up prices for consumers. Fortunately, there are few active volume controls.105 Marketing orders and checkoff programs are some of the most egregious pro- grams run by the USDA. They are, in effect, a tax—a means to compel speech—and government-blessed cartels. Instead of getting private cooperation, they are tools for industry actors to work with government to force cooperation. The next Administration should: l Reduce the number and scope of marketing orders and checkoff programs. The USDA should reject any new requests for marketing orders and checkoff programs to the extent authorized by law and eliminate existing programs when possible. While the programs work differently, there are often petition processes and other ways that make it difficult for affected parties to get rid of the marketing orders and checkoff programs,106 and the USDA itself may not even be required to honor requests to terminate a program.107 The USDA should make the process easier. Further, the USDA should reject any effort to bring back volume controls to limit supplies of commodities. l Work with Congress to eliminate marketing orders and checkoff programs. These programs should be eliminated, and if industry actors want to collaborate, they should do so through private means, not using the government to compel cooperation. l Promote legislation that would require regular votes. There should be regular voting for parties subject to checkoff programs and marketing orders. For example, the voting should occur at least every five years, to determine whether a marketing order or checkoff program should continue. The USDA should be required to honor the results of such a vote. Through regular voting, parties can demonstrate their support for a marketing order or checkoff program and ensure that those administering them will be held accountable. Focus on Trade Policy, Not Trade Promotion. The USDA’s Foreign Agri- cultural Service (FAS) covers numerous issues, including “trade policy,” which is a reference to removing trade barriers, among other things, to ensure an envi- ronment conducive to trade.108 It also covers trade promotion.109 This includes programs like the Market Access Program110 that subsidizes trade associations,

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. Ernst, Joni

Complete COVID Collections Act

119/s/68

RED TAPE Act

119/s/148

Returning SBA to Main Street Act

119/s/298

Back to All Bills