A resolution designating February 16, 2025, as "National Elizabeth Peratrovich Day".

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/sres/92

Last Updated: June 23, 2025

A resolution designating February 16, 2025, as "National Elizabeth Peratrovich Day".

SRES. 92, 119th Congress.

The sponsor

Sen. Sullivan, Dan [R-AK]

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

The money

$1,129,097 raised

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

The alignment

55% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Department of the Interior" section, p. 572-574 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 S1316; text: CR S1316)

February 23, 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:

*Sigh* Alright, let's get this over with. As I taught you in 8th grade civics class, a bill is a proposed law that must go through a series of steps before it can become an actual law. This particular bill, SRES 92, is a resolution designating February 16, 2025, as "National Elizabeth Peratrovich Day".

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The main purpose of this resolution is to honor the life and legacy of Elizabeth Wanamaker Peratrovich, a Tlingit woman who fought for social equality and civil liberties for Alaska Native and Native American communities. The objectives are to recognize her contributions, promote awareness about her work, and encourage continued efforts towards ensuring equality for these communities.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** This resolution does not propose any changes to existing law. It's a simple designation of a day to honor Elizabeth Peratrovich's legacy. Remember when we learned about the different types of bills in middle school? This one is an example of a commemorative bill, which aims to recognize or celebrate a person, event, or occasion.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The affected parties and stakeholders include Alaska Natives and Native Americans, who will benefit from the recognition and awareness raised by this resolution. Additionally, the State of Alaska, which has already recognized February 16 as Elizabeth Peratrovich Day since 1988, may also be impacted.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The potential impact of this resolution is largely symbolic, aiming to raise awareness about Elizabeth Peratrovich's contributions and promote continued efforts towards equality. However, it may also have some practical implications, such as inspiring further legislation or initiatives that address the ongoing challenges faced by Alaska Native and Native American communities.

Now, I know what you're thinking: "Why do we need a resolution for this?" Well, as I taught you in 8th grade civics class, resolutions like these can help raise awareness about important issues and promote national unity. But let's be real, folks, if people had just paid attention in middle school social studies, we wouldn't need to have this conversation...

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (civics_teacher personality)

(leaning in, lowering voice) Ah, folks, gather 'round, I've got a doozy for ya! This SRES 92 bill might seem like a harmless tribute to Elizabeth Peratrovich, but trust me, there's more to it than meets the eye. (winking)

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** On the surface, this resolution designates February 16, 2025, as "National Elizabeth Peratrovich Day" to honor her contributions to civil rights and social equality for Alaska Natives and Native Americans. But, I ask you, why now? Why in 2025? What's really going on here?

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** This resolution doesn't change any existing laws, but it does call on the people of the United States to observe National Elizabeth Peratrovich Day and encourages Congress to continue her work. Sounds innocent enough, right? But think about it – this is a subtle way for the government to promote a specific narrative, one that might be used to further their own agenda.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** Alaska Natives, Native Americans, and civil rights advocates are the obvious stakeholders here. However, I'd argue that this resolution also affects anyone who's interested in preserving American history and culture. You see, by elevating Elizabeth Peratrovich to national prominence, they're creating a new narrative about our country's past – one that might be used to justify future policies or actions.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** Now, here's where things get interesting. By designating a national day for Elizabeth Peratrovich, the government is essentially creating a cultural touchstone. This could lead to increased funding for Native American programs, education initiatives, and even land rights activism. But what if this is just a Trojan horse? What if the real goal is to use this resolution as a stepping stone for more significant policy changes down the line?

(leaning in closer) Think about it – with this resolution, they're setting a precedent for recognizing Native American contributions on a national scale. Next thing you know, we'll be seeing similar resolutions for other marginalized groups. It's a slippery slope, folks! Before we know it, our entire cultural identity will be rewritten.

(winking) Now, I'm not saying Elizabeth Peratrovich wasn't an incredible woman who deserved recognition. But let's not be naive – there's always more to the story than what they're telling us. Keep your eyes open, folks. The truth is out there, hidden in plain sight.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (conspiracy_uncle personality)

(Deep breath) Folks, gather 'round. We've got a real doozy of a bill on our hands here. SRES 92, designating February 16, 2025, as "National Elizabeth Peratrovich Day". (Sarcastic tone) Oh boy, I can barely contain my excitement.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** This resolution is all about honoring the life and legacy of Elizabeth Wanamaker Peratrovich, a Tlingit woman who fought for social equality and civil liberties in Alaska. (Smirk) You know, because we don't have enough national days already. But seriously, it's a feel-good bill that aims to recognize her contributions to the advancement of equality under the law.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** Well, this is where things get really juicy. The resolution designates February 16, 2025, as National Elizabeth Peratrovich Day, which means... (dramatic pause) ...nothing will actually change in terms of existing law. It's just a symbolic gesture. But hey, who doesn't love a good symbolic gesture? (Wink)

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** This bill affects all the usual suspects: Alaska Natives, Native Americans, and anyone who cares about social justice. (Air quotes) "Elites" will probably be thrilled to see this resolution pass, as it checks all the right boxes for virtue signaling.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** Now, here's where things get interesting. This bill might seem harmless on the surface, but let me tell you, folks, it's part of a larger agenda. (Conspiratorial tone) It's a Trojan horse for more "social justice" initiatives and a further erosion of our freedoms. I mean, think about it: if we start designating national days for every social justice warrior who comes along, where does it end? (Rhetorical question) Next thing you know, they'll be trying to take away our right to bear arms... or worse! (Gasp)

But in all seriousness, this bill is just a drop in the bucket. It's a minor victory for the "woke" crowd, but it won't actually change anything meaningful. So, go ahead and celebrate National Elizabeth Peratrovich Day, folks. Just don't expect me to join you. (Smirk)

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (fox_host personality)

Another meaningless resolution from the esteemed members of Congress, because what's more pressing than designating a national day for someone most Americans have never heard of? Let me put on my surgical gloves and dissect this legislative farce.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The main purpose of SRES 92 is to stroke the egos of Senators Sullivan and Murkowski by designating February 16, 2025, as "National Elizabeth Peratrovich Day." The objective? To pretend that Congress cares about social justice and equality while doing absolutely nothing concrete to address these issues.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** There are no key provisions or changes to existing law. This resolution is a hollow gesture, a feel-good exercise in futility. It's like prescribing a placebo to a patient with a terminal illness – it might make them feel better for a moment, but it won't change the outcome.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The only parties affected by this resolution are Elizabeth Peratrovich's descendants and the Senators who sponsored this bill. They'll get to pat themselves on the back for "honoring" her legacy while ignoring the real issues facing Alaska Natives and Native Americans today.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** Zero. Zilch. Nada. This resolution will have no impact whatsoever on the lives of Alaska Natives, Native Americans, or anyone else. It's a symbolic gesture devoid of substance, like a politician's promise to "fight for change" without actually doing anything.

In medical terms, this bill is akin to a patient with a severe case of hypochondria – they're convinced they have a serious illness, but in reality, it's just a minor cold. Congress is treating the symptoms (perceived lack of recognition for Elizabeth Peratrovich) instead of addressing the underlying disease (systemic inequality and racism).

In short, SRES 92 is a legislative placebo, a Band-Aid on a bullet wound. It's a cynical attempt to appear concerned about social justice while doing nothing to actually address these issues. Bravo, Congress. You've managed to waste everyone's time again.

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

**Bill Summary: SRES 92 - National Elizabeth Peratrovich Day**

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The main purpose of this resolution is to designate February 16, 2025, as "National Elizabeth Peratrovich Day" in recognition of the life and civil rights advocacy of Elizabeth Wanamaker Peratrovich, a Tlingit woman who fought for social equality and respect for Alaska Native and Native American communities.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The resolution designates February 16, 2025, as National Elizabeth Peratrovich Day and calls on the people of the United States to observe this day by remembering Elizabeth's work and other civil rights leaders. It also encourages the people of the United States and Members of Congress to commemorate Elizabeth's life and advocacy by continuing the important work of ensuring equality for Alaska Natives and Native Americans.

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

* Alaska Natives and Native American communities, who will benefit from the recognition of Elizabeth Peratrovich's contributions to their civil rights. * The State of Alaska, which has already recognized February 16 as Elizabeth Peratrovich Day since 1988. * Members of Congress, who are encouraged to continue the important work of ensuring equality for Alaska Natives and Native Americans.

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

* Raising awareness about the life and legacy of Elizabeth Peratrovich and her contributions to civil rights in the United States. * Promoting unity and recognition of the importance of social equality and respect for Alaska Native and Native American communities. * Encouraging continued efforts to ensure equality for these communities, which may lead to policy changes or initiatives that address ongoing disparities and injustices.

Overall, this resolution aims to honor Elizabeth Peratrovich's legacy and promote a more inclusive and equitable society for all Americans.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (neutral personality)

Let's break down this gnarly bill, bro.

**Main Purpose & Objectives** This resolution is all about recognizing the legendary Elizabeth Peratrovich, a Tlingit woman from Alaska who fought tirelessly for social equality and civil liberties. The main objective is to designate February 16, 2025, as "National Elizabeth Peratrovich Day" to honor her legacy and contributions to advancing equality under the law.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The resolution doesn't make any changes to existing laws, but rather serves as a symbolic gesture to acknowledge Elizabeth's impact. It calls on the people of the United States to observe National Elizabeth Peratrovich Day by remembering her work and that of other civil rights leaders. The Senate also encourages continued efforts to ensure equality for Alaska Natives and Native Americans.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders** The affected parties are primarily Alaska Natives, Native Americans, and the broader community who benefit from Elizabeth's advocacy. The resolution also acknowledges the important role of the Alaska Native Brotherhood and the Alaska Native Sisterhood in supporting her work.

**Potential Impact & Implications** This resolution has a profound impact on raising awareness about the struggles faced by Alaska Natives and Native Americans. By recognizing Elizabeth's contributions, it highlights the importance of continued efforts to address systemic inequalities and promote social justice. The resolution also serves as a reminder of the power of community advocacy and the impact one person can have in creating positive change.

In a broader sense, this resolution is like catching a wave, bro – it's about riding the momentum of social progress and keeping the conversation going. By acknowledging Elizabeth's legacy, we're reminded that there's still work to be done to ensure equality for all, especially for marginalized communities.

So, in summary, this bill is all about giving props to an amazing woman who fought for what's right, and encouraging us to keep pushing for a more just society. That's totally tubular, bro!

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (surfer personality)

**SRES 92 Analysis**

**Main Purpose & Objectives** The main purpose of SRES 92 is to designate February 16, 2025, as "National Elizabeth Peratrovich Day" in recognition of the life and work of Elizabeth Wanamaker Peratrovich, a Tlingit woman who fought for social equality and civil liberties for Alaska Native and Native American communities. The resolution aims to honor her legacy and promote awareness about the importance of equality under the law.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The resolution is non-binding and does not change existing law. It simply designates a specific day as "National Elizabeth Peratrovich Day" and encourages people to observe it by remembering Elizabeth's work and continuing her advocacy for equality.

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

* Alaska Native and Native American communities, who will benefit from the recognition of Elizabeth's contributions to their civil rights. * The State of Alaska, which has already recognized February 16 as Elizabeth Peratrovich Day since 1988. * The United States Mint, which released a commemorative coin in 2020 to honor Elizabeth's legacy.

**Potential Impact & Implications** The resolution is largely symbolic and does not have significant policy implications. However, it may:

* Raise awareness about the importance of equality under the law for Alaska Native and Native American communities. * Encourage further recognition and celebration of Elizabeth Peratrovich's life and work. * Provide an opportunity for lawmakers to highlight their commitment to civil rights and social justice.

**Monied Interest Analysis** There are no apparent monied interests directly influencing this resolution. The sponsors, Senators Sullivan (R-AK) and Murkowski (R-AK), have a strong connection to Alaska and may be motivated by a desire to honor Elizabeth's legacy and promote awareness about the state's rich cultural heritage.

**Committee Capture and Conflicts of Interest** There are no apparent conflicts of interest or committee capture related to this resolution. The Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, which has jurisdiction over Native American issues, may have reviewed the resolution, but there is no evidence of undue influence from special interests.

In summary, SRES 92 is a non-binding resolution that aims to honor Elizabeth Peratrovich's legacy and promote awareness about equality under the law for Alaska Native and Native American communities. While it does not have significant policy implications, it may raise awareness and encourage further recognition of Elizabeth's contributions to civil rights.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (whistleblower personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Sen. Sullivan, Dan [R-AK]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$1,129,097

18 donors

PACs

$91,600

Organizations

$1,035,500

Committees

Individuals

SEND IN THE SEAL PAC

2 transactions

$60,000

THE LINCOLN CLUB OF ORANGE COUNTY FEDERAL PAC

1 transaction

$25,000

WINRED

1 transaction

$6,600

MACLEAN-FOGG COMPANY

3 transactions

$141,300

PASCUA YAQUI TRIBE

2 transactions

$82,600

PECHANGA TRIBE OF LUISENO MISSION INDIANS

2 transactions

$82,600

ONEIDA INDIAN NATION

2 transactions

$82,600

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

2 transactions

$82,600

SOBOBA BAND OF LUISENO INDIANS

2 transactions

$82,600

CHICKASAW NATION

2 transactions

$82,600

AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS

2 transactions

$77,800

MISSISSIPPI BAND OF CHOCTAW INDIANS

2 transactions

$77,800

POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS

2 transactions

$77,800

AK-CHIN INDIAN COMMUNITY

1 transaction

$41,300

TIGUA INDIAN RESERVATION

1 transaction

$41,300

TUNICA-BILOXI TRIBE OF LOUISIANA

1 transaction

$41,300

MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

1 transaction

$41,300

No committee contributions found

No individual contributions found

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

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

Sen. Murkowski, Lisa [R-AK]

ID: M001153

Top Contributors

MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE

OrganizationAUBURN, WA

$3,300

May 15, 2023

THE CHICKASAW NATION

OrganizationADA, OK

$2,500

Dec 20, 2023

MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE

OrganizationAUBURN, WA

$1,000

Nov 20, 2024

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$1,000

Oct 26, 2023

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$1,000

Jun 3, 2024

PUYALLUP TRIBE OF INDIANS

OrganizationTACOMA, WA

$1,000

Sep 30, 2024

SUQUAMISH INDIAN TRIBE

OrganizationSUQUAMISH, WA

$1,000

Sep 30, 2024

TOHONO O'ODHAM NATION

OrganizationSELLS, AZ

$1,000

Aug 9, 2024

CHOCTAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA

OrganizationDURANT, OK

$550

Oct 26, 2023

SEGAL, PAUL

LS POWER DEVELOPMENT, LLC • CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$3,300

Dec 16, 2023

Donor Network - Sen. Sullivan, Dan [R-AK]

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 33 connections (75 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $1,135,897

Top Donors - Sen. Sullivan, Dan [R-AK]

Showing top 18 donors by contribution amount

3 PACs14 Orgs1 Committee

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 the Interior

Weak

Vector: 51%

Pages: 572-574AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill honors Elizabeth Peratrovich and promotes civil rights recognition for Alaska Natives, which tangentially relates to Project 2025's mention of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) in the Interior section, but does not engage with the policy's focus on energy leasing, environmental streamlining, or resource development priorities."

Key themes:Alaska Native rightscivil rights recognitionDepartment of the InteriorANCSAcultural heritage

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

Department of Education

Weak

Vector: 51%

Pages: 368-370AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on symbolic recognition of a civil rights leader, while the Project 2025 Education section seeks to rescind specific equity regulations and policies; they share only a broad civil rights theme but diverge in substantive objectives."

Key themes:civil rightsequalityNative American rights

— 336 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise on civil rights, the next conservative Administration should take sweeping action to assure that the purpose of the Civil Rights Act is not inverted through a disparate impact standard to provide a pretext for theoretically endless federal meddling. Assistance to States for the Education of Children with Disabilities; Preschool Grants for Children with Disabilities (Equity in IDEA) l Effective January 18, 2017, the department issued final regulations under Part B of IDEA that require states to consider race and ethnicity in the identification, placement, and discipline of students with disabilities. The new Administration should rescind this regulation. Students should never be denied access to special education services because of their race or ethnicity, but this is happening in school districts across the country thanks to the Obama Administration’s Equity in IDEA regulation. This was not the intent of the regulation, but it is an inevitable byproduct of its flawed assumptions. The Obama Administration looked at the racial statistics on special education assignment and made two assumptions: that African American students were dis- proportionately overrepresented, and that this overrepresentation constituted a harm that required federal pressure to ameliorate. School districts deemed to overrepresent minority students in special education assignment, or in discipline amongst special education students, are tagged by their state education agencies as engaging in “significant disproportionality,” and are required to reallocate 15 percent of their IDEA Part B money into coordinated early intervening services that are intended to address the “root causes of dispro- portionality.” In practice, this can mean raiding special education funding to pay for CRT-inspired “equity” consultants and professional development. This is especially problematic given that both of the assumptions behind Equity in IDEA are flawed. Special education services provide extra assistance to students; they do not harm them. And according to the most rigorous research on the subject, conducted by Penn State’s Paul Morgan, black students are actually underrep- resented in special education once adequate statistical controls are made. That means that this regulation effectively further depresses the provision of valuable services to an already underserved group. l The next Administration should immediately commence rulemaking to rescind the Equity in IDEA regulation. No replacement regulation is required. l The Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS) should prepare a digest of the best research on this subject and share — 337 — Department of Education it directly with state superintendents and state special education leaders across the country, who have been led by this regulation to believe a false problem diagnosis. Every effort should be made to dissuade states from continuing to operate on the assumption that overrepresentation requires state intervention after the federal pressure is rescinded. Provide School Meals to Children in Need; Do Not Use Federal Meals to Support Radical Ideology In May 2022, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) tried to advance a radical political agenda using the federal school meal program. Nearly a century ago, federal lawmakers adopted the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) and School Breakfast Program (SBP) and other services that provide meals for K–12 students to give children from low-income families access to food while at school. Since the 1940s, federal lawmakers have greatly expanded these meal programs, creating an entitlement for nearly all students, regardless of family income levels, and have turned the meal programs into some of the most wasteful federal pro- grams in Washington. Now, the USDA is threatening to withhold federal taxpayer spending for these meals from schools that do not implement Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 so that the term “sex” is replaced with “sexual orientation and gender identity” (SOGI). l The next Administration should prohibit the USDA or any other federal agency from withholding services from federal or state agencies—including but not limited to K–12 schools—that choose not to replace “sex” with “SOGI” in that agency’s administration of Title IX. The Administration will have significant support for this policy change among state officials and Members of Congress. Twenty-two state attorneys general filed a lawsuit after the USDA’s announcement that the agency intended to withhold spending from schools that do not replace sex with SOGI. Members of Congress also introduced legislation in 2022 that would prohibit the agency from carrying out its intentions regarding Title IX. Phase Out Existing Income-Driven Repayment Plans While income-driven repayment (IDR) of student loans is a superior approach relative to fixed payment plans, the number of IDR plans has proliferated beyond reason. And recent IDR plans are so generous that they require no or only token repayment from many students. l The Secretary should phase out all existing IDR plans by making new loans (including consolidation loans) ineligible and should implement

Department of the Interior

Weak

Vector: 50%

Pages: 575-577AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on honoring Elizabeth Peratrovich's civil rights legacy, while the Project 2025 Interior section discusses Alaska land transfers, oil drilling, Antiquities Act litigation, and resource management. Both mention Alaska Native interests, but their objectives and policy directions are largely unrelated."

Key themes:AlaskaNative AlaskansDepartment of the InteriorLand management

— 542 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 53. Alaska’s request for an injunction was denied. State of Alaska v. Carter, 462 F. Supp. 1155, 1156 (D. Alaska 1978) (NEPA does not apply to presidential proclamations under the Antiquities Act). Alaska’s lawsuit was similar to one filed by Wyoming challenging use of the Antiquities Act to designate the Grand Teton National Monument. Wyoming v. Franke, 58 F. Supp. 890 (D. Wyo. 1945). See generally Carol Hardy Vincent and Kristina Alexander, “National Monuments and the Antiquities Act,” Congressional Research Service Report for Congress, R41330, July 20, 2010, https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc813640/m2/1/high_res_d/ R41330_2011Aug22.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). In December 1980, President Carter signed the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservations Act; subsequently, during the Reagan Administration, Alaska dropped its lawsuit. 54. Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, Public Law 96–487 (codified as amended in scattered sections of 16 U.S.C., 43 U.S.C., 48 U.S.C.), and Joseph J. Perkins, Jr., The Great Land Divided But Not Conquered: The Effects of Statehood, ANCSA, and ANILCA on Alaska, Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Institute, Vol. 34, Ch. 6, 1988, § 6.02. 55. U.S. Department of the Interior, 1983: A Year Of Enrichment: Improving The Quality Of Life For All Americans, October 1983, p. 25, https://www.reaganlibrary.gov/public/digitallibrary/smof/publicliaison/blackwell/box- 006/40_047_7006969_006_022_2017.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 56. Ibid. The conveyances by the Reagan Administration to Alaska and Native Alaskans greatly exceeded the amount of land transferred to each during the Carter Administration. See U.S. Department of the Interior, 1983: A Year Of Enrichment, pp. 86–87. 57. Federal Register, Vol. 36, No. 252 (December 31, 1971), pp. 25410–25412. “On December 28, 1971, ten days after enactment of ANCSA, the Secretary of Interior through his Assistant Secretary issued Public Land Order (PLO) 5150 which withdrew and reserved various federal public lands, subject to valid existing rights, as a utility and transportation corridor for the Alaska oil pipeline. 36 Fed. Reg. 25410 (December 31, 1971). The land order was issued ‘by virtue of the authority vested in the President and pursuant to Executive Order 10355 of May 26, 1952 (17 Fed. Reg. 4831)….PLO 5150 established a corridor extending from the North Slope of Alaska (Prudhoe Bay) south to Valdez on Prince William Sound.’” Wisenak, Inc. v. Andrus, 471 F. Supp. 1004, 1006 (D. Alaska 1979). 58. Alaska Land Transfer Acceleration Act, Public Law 108–452. 59. Philip Elliott, “Biden May Be About to Sign Off on a Huge Alaska Oil Drilling Project,” Time, December 13, 2022, https://time.com/6240733/biden-alaska-oil-drilling-willow-project/ (accessed March 16, 2023). A Biden approval of the bare minimum three pads for ConocoPhillips disincentivized the ability of any other oil and gas company to make the huge investment necessary to operate in NPRA. 60. Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Mining, Land and Water, “Ambler Road Project,” https:// dnr.alaska.gov/mlw/ambler-road/ (accessed March 17, 2023). 61. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Ambler Road: Environmental Impact Statement: Vol. 1, March 2020, https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/nepa/57323/20015364/250020506/Ambler_ FEIS_Volume_1-_Chp_1-3_&__Appendices_A-F_.pdf (accessed March 18, 2023). 62. 5 U.S. Code § 801(a)(1)(A). 63. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Master Memorandum of Understanding Between the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau, Alaska and the U.S. National Park Service,” October 14, 1982; U.S. Department of the Interior, “Master Memorandum of Understanding Between the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau, Alaska and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Survey,” March 13, 1982; and U.S. Department of the Interior, “Master Memorandum of Understanding Between the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau, Alaska and the Bureau of Land Management,” August 3, 1983, https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/ lup/66967/84127/100727/Memorandum_of_Understanding_BLM_and_ADFG.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 64. Federal Register, Vol. 85, No. 210 (October 29, 2020), pp. 68668–68703. 65. Federal Register, Vol. 88, No. 18 (January 27, 2023), pp. 5252–5272. 66. E. Dinerstein et al., “A Global Deal For Nature: Guiding Principles, Milestones, and Targets,” Science Advances, Vol. 5, No. 4 (April 19, 2019), https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aaw2869 (accessed March 18, 2023). 67. Joseph R. Biden, “Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad,” Executive Order 14008, https://www. whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/01/27/executive-order-on-tackling-the-climate- crisis-at-home-and-abroad/ (accessed March 17, 2023). — 543 — Department of the Interior 68. Karen Budd Falen, “Biden’s ‘30 By 30 Plan’: A Slap at American Private Property Rights,” Cowboy State Daily, April 15, 2021, https://cowboystatedaily.com/2021/04/15/bidens-30-by-30-plan-a-slap-at-american-private- property-rights/ (accessed March 16, 2023). 69. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3396: Rescission of Secretary’s Order 3388, ‘Land and Water Conservation Fund Implementation by the U.S. Department of the Interior,’” February 11, 2021, https://www. doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/elips/documents/so-3396-signed-2-11-21-final.pdf (accessed March 17, 2021). 70. Ibid. 71. Associated Press, “Ute Indian Tribe Criticizes Biden’s Camp Hale Monument Designation,” KUER 90.1, October 13, 2022. 72. William Perry Pendley, “Trump Wants to Free Up Federal Lands, His Interior Secretary Fails Him,” National Review Online, September 25, 2017, https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/09/secretary-interior-ryan-zinke- monuments-review-trump-executive-order-antiquities-act-environmentalists/ (accessed March 16, 2023). 73. The Oregon and California Revested Lands Sustained Yield Management Act of 1937, Public Law 75-405, 43 U.S. Code § 2601. 74. Ibid., and American Forest Resource Council v. Hammond, 422 F. Supp. 3d 184, 187 (D.D.C. 2019). 75. American Forest Resource Council v. Hammond, 422 F. Supp. 3d, pp. 187–188. 76. Federal Register, Vol. 55, No. 26 (June 26, 1990), p. 26114–26194. 77. Federal Register, Vol. 65, No. 114 (June 13, 2000), pp. 37249–37252. 78. Federal Register, Vol. 82, No. 11 (January 18, 2017), pp. 6145–6150. 79. American Forest Resource Council v. Hammond, 422 F. Supp. 3d 184 (D.D.C. 2019). 80. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Final Consent Decrees/Settlement Agreements,” https://www.doi.gov/ solicitor/transparency/final (accessed March 16, 2023). 81. Michael Doyle, “Interior Order Erases Litigation Website,” E&E News, June 17, 2022, https://www.eenews.net/ articles/interior-order-erases-litigation-website/ (accessed March 16, 2023). 82. Rob Roy Ramey, On the Origin of Specious Species (Lexington Books 2012), pp. 77–97. 83. William Perry Pendley, “Killing Jobs to Save the Sage Grouse: Junk Science, Weird Science, and Plain Nonsense,” Washington Times, May 31, 2012, https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/may/31/killing- jobs-to-save-the-sage-grouse/ (accessed March 16, 2023). 84. Michael Lee, “Wyoming’s Push to Delist Grizzly Bears from Endangered Species List Faces Opposition from Anti-Hunting Group,” Fox News, January 21, 2022, https://www.foxnews.com/politics/wyoming-delist-grizzly- endangered-species-list-opposition-anti-hunting-group (accessed March 18, 2023). 85. News release, “Trump Administration Returns Management and Protection of Gray Wolves to States and Tribes Following Successful Recovery Efforts,” October 29, 2020, https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/trump- administration-returns-management-and-protection-gray-wolves-states-and-tribes (accessed March 18, 2023). 86. 50 Code of Federal Regulations §17, and Sean Paige, “‘Rewilding’ Will Backfire on Colorado,” The Gazette, June 19, 2022, https://gazette.com/opinion/guest-column-rewilding-will-backfire-on-colorado/article_ d0016672-ed79-11ec-b027-abe62ba840a1.html (accessed March 18, 2023). 87. Madeleine C. Bottrill et al., “Is Conservation Triage Just Smart Decision Making?” Trends in Ecology & Evolution, Vol. 23, No. 12 (December 2008), pp. 649–654, https://karkgroup.org/wp-content/uploads/Bottrill-et-al-2008. pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 88. Rob Roy Ramey II, testimony before the Committee on Resources, U.S. House of Representatives, April 8, 2014, https://naturalresources.house.gov/uploadedfiles/rameytestimony4_8.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 89. Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, Public Law 95–87. 90. Pennsylvania is the nation’s third-largest coal producer, and its state program was the model for SMCRA. 91. Federal Register, Vol. 85, No. 207 (October 26, 2020), pp. 67631–67635. 92. U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, “Approximate Original Contour,” INE–26, June 23, 2020, https://www.osmre.gov/sites/default/files/pdfs/directive1003.pdf (accessed March 18, 2023). 93. Tim Gallaudet and Timothy R. Petty, “Federal Action Plan for Improving Forecasts of Water Availability,” National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, October 2019, https://www.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/ legacy/document/2019/Oct/Federal%20Action%20Plan%20for%20Improving%20Forecasts%20of%20 Water%20Availability.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023).

Department of Labor and Related Agencies

Weak

Vector: 50%

Pages: 621-623AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on honoring a civil rights leader and promoting equality for Alaska Native and Native American communities, while the Project 2025 labor policy addresses Sabbath rest, telework rules, and independent contractor classification. There is only a tangential connection through broad themes of social equity and recognition, but no direct policy overlap."

Key themes:civil rightsequalityrecognition

— 589 — Department of Labor and Related Agencies Alternative View. While metrics on the state of American families and civil soci- ety are important and useful, monthly statistics would be of little additional value and could end up causing unnecessary confusion and concern. Funding should be oriented towards improving the timeliness of annual family statistics. Sabbath Rest. God ordained the Sabbath as a day of rest, and until very recently the Judeo-Christian tradition sought to honor that mandate by moral and legal regulation of work on that day. Moreover, a shared day off makes it possible for families and communities to enjoy time off together, rather than as atomized individuals, and provides a healthier cadence of life for everyone. Unfortunately, that communal day of rest has eroded under the pressures of consumerism and secularism, especially for low-income workers. l Congress should encourage communal rest by amending the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)9 to require that workers be paid time and a half for hours worked on the Sabbath. That day would default to Sunday, except for employers with a sincere religious observance of a Sabbath at a different time (e.g., Friday sundown to Saturday sundown); the obligation would transfer to that period instead. Houses of worship (to the limited extent they may have FLSA-covered employees) and employers legally required to operate around the clock (such as hospitals and first responders) would be exempt, as would workers otherwise exempt from overtime. Alternative View. While some conservatives believe that the government should encourage certain religious observance by making it more expensive for employers and consumers to not partake in those observances, other conservatives believe that the government’s role is to protect the free exercise of religion by eliminating barriers as opposed to erecting them. Whereas imposing overtime rules on the Sab- bath would lead to higher costs and limited access to goods and services and reduce work available on the Sabbath (while also incentivizing some people—through higher wages—to desire to work on the Sabbath), the proper role of government in helping to enable individuals to practice their religion is to reduce barriers to work options and to fruitful employer and employee relations. The result: ample job options that do not require work on the Sabbath so that individuals in roles that sometimes do require Sabbath work are empowered to negotiate directly with their employer to achieve their desired schedule. Teleworking. COVID made telework ubiquitous, but the law and regulations are still stuck in an era when telework was unique. l Congress should clarify that overtime for telework applies only if the employee exceeds 10 hours of work in a specific day (and the total hours for the week exceed 40). — 590 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l DOL should clarify that an employee given the option to telework need only record time if the quantity of work assigned for that day exceeds the usual amount of work that employee performs so that the employee need not track every time he logs in and out and the employer need not do so either. l DOL should clarify that a home office is not subject to OSHA regulations and that time to set up a home office is not compensable time or eligible for overtime calculations. DOL should likewise clarify that reimbursement for home office expenses is not part of an employee’s regular rate, even if those reimbursements are repetitive (such as for internet or cell phone service). Making Family-Sustaining Work Accessible. Our national work ethic is an American hallmark. As Benjamin Franklin once said, “America is the land of labor.” Much of American life is mediated by Americans coming together to take responsi- bility for solving problems and helping their communities. Our labor agenda must allow community institutions, including small businesses, schools and universities, religious organizations, and worker organizations, to thrive. Protect flexible work options and worker independence (independent contractors). Roughly 60 million Americans across all income groups, ages, education levels, races, and household types participate in independent work, including full-time, part-time, or as a “side hustle.” People choose independent work for a variety of reasons, including flexibility, earnings potential, and the desire to be one’s own boss. An economic analysis of data from one million Uber drivers found that they valued the flexibility of the platform at 40 percent of their earnings, and the average Uber driver would not work at all if he or she had to submit to a taxi-cab schedule. The value of flexibility extends beyond ride-sharing and other platform work; more than half of people who did independent work in 2021 said they cannot work a traditional job because of personal or family circumstances such as their health or caring for a child or family member. Independent workers, or contractors, are also critical to entrepreneurship and small-business growth and success. On average, employers with four or fewer employees rely on seven contractors to run their business. Without the ability to hire those contractors, many small businesses could not compete with larger ones that can afford to employ workers in-house. Businesses and workers currently must navigate many different definitions of who is and who is not an employee (or an independent contractor) based on federal and state employment, compensation, tort, tax, and pension laws. This complexity often leads to confusion, improper classification, and costly litigation. The Trump Administration finalized rules to provide clarity on which workers

Department of Agriculture

Minimal

Vector: 50%

Pages: 347-349AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill designates a national day to honor Elizabeth Peratrovich's civil rights advocacy for Alaska Native and Native American communities, while the Project 2025 policy excerpt focuses on USDA programs, school meals, conservation compliance, and agricultural regulations. There is no thematic or policy overlap between the two."

— 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. Sullivan, Dan

Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control Amendments Act of 2025

119/s/93

North Pacific Research Board Enhancement Act

119/s/190

Save Our Seas 2.0 Amendments Act

119/s/216

Back to All Bills