An original resolution authorizing expenditures by committees of the Senate for the periods March 1, 2025, through September 30, 2025, October 1, 2025, through September 30, 2026, and October 1, 2026, through February 28, 2027.

Download PDF
Bill ID: 119/sres/94
Last Updated: July 10, 2025

Sponsored by

Sen. McConnell, Mitch [R-KY]

ID: M000355

Follow the money

The bill

An original resolution authorizing expenditures by committees of the Senate for the periods March 1, 2025, through September 30, 2025, October 1, 2025, through September 30, 2026, and October 1, 2026, through February 28, 2027.

SRES. 94, 119th Congress — read as touching Defense Contractors.

The sponsor

Sen. McConnell, Mitch [R-KY]

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

The money

$92,400 raised

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

The alignment

55% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Department of Agriculture" section, p. 344-346 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Resolution agreed to in Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S1434; text: 02/25/2025 CR S1352-1358)

February 26, 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

Another masterpiece of legislative theater, courtesy of the Senate. SRES 94 is a bill that authorizes expenditures for various committees, because what's a few hundred million dollars among friends? Let's dissect this farce.

**Diagnosis:** This bill is suffering from a bad case of "Bureaucratic Bloat Syndrome" (BBS). Symptoms include an insatiable appetite for taxpayer dollars, a complete disregard for accountability, and a penchant for creating unnecessary regulations.

**New Regulations:** None. Zilch. Zip. This bill doesn't create or modify any meaningful regulations. It's just a blank check for Senate committees to spend money on... well, whatever they want.

**Affected Industries and Sectors:** The only industry affected is the one that matters most: the lobbying industry. Expect an influx of "consultants" and "experts" to descend upon Capitol Hill, eager to "help" committees make informed decisions (read: line their own pockets).

**Compliance Requirements and Timelines:** There are no compliance requirements or timelines because this bill doesn't actually do anything. It's a shell game, folks.

**Enforcement Mechanisms and Penalties:** Ha! Don't be ridiculous. This bill is designed to avoid accountability, not ensure it. If you're expecting consequences for wasteful spending or abuse of power, keep dreaming.

**Economic and Operational Impacts:** The economic impact will be negligible, except for the committees themselves, which will enjoy a nice influx of cash. Operationally, this bill will have zero effect on the functioning of government, except to further entrench the status quo of bureaucratic inefficiency.

In conclusion, SRES 94 is a textbook example of legislative malpractice. It's a bill that serves no purpose other than to perpetuate the cycle of waste and corruption in Washington. If you're looking for a cure for Bureaucratic Bloat Syndrome, keep searching – this bill won't provide it.

**Prognosis:** Terminal. This bill will pass with flying colors, and the Senate committees will continue to spend taxpayer dollars like they're going out of style. The American people will be left footing the bill, wondering why their government can't seem to get its act together.

Related Topics

Federal Budget & Appropriations
Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Sen. McConnell, Mitch [R-KY]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions
$430,954
244 donors
PACs
$0
Organizations
$0
Committees
$0
Individuals
$430,954

No PAC contributions found

No organization contributions found

No committee contributions found

1
ROTH, RICHARD A
5 transactions
$13,200
2
ANDERSON, SCOTT
2 transactions
$10,000
3
STEWARD, DAVID
2 transactions
$10,000
4
PIPER, WILLIAM H. MR.
3 transactions
$8,300
5
REYNOLDS, WAYNE
1 transaction
$8,000
6
DUNNING, JAMES
1 transaction
$6,600
7
BOWEN, ROBIN MS.
3 transactions
$6,000
8
RYLAND, MERLE MR.
1 transaction
$5,600
9
BAILEY, CATHERINE T
1 transaction
$5,000
10
BAILEY, IRVING W II
1 transaction
$5,000
11
BROWN, J. MCCAULEY MR.
2 transactions
$5,000
12
KIMBELL, JEFFREY J. MR.
1 transaction
$5,000
13
RYLAND, MERLE A MR.
1 transaction
$5,000
14
SIMMONS, KYLE
2 transactions
$5,000
15
MARSHALL, MEGAN
2 transactions
$5,000
16
JARVIS, ALEIX MR.
2 transactions
$4,500
17
LANG, BETH
5 transactions
$4,500
18
JARVIS, ELIZABETH
2 transactions
$4,200
19
KUMAR, ROHIT
2 transactions
$3,500
20
BAILEY, CATHERINE T.
1 transaction
$3,300
21
BANKE, BARBARA R. MS.
1 transaction
$3,300
22
BATES, HUNTER
1 transaction
$3,300
23
BERRY, TURNEY MS.
1 transaction
$3,300
24
BUTLER, WILLIAM MR.
1 transaction
$3,300
25
DUNN, BRENDAN
1 transaction
$3,300
26
FORCHT, TERRY MR.
1 transaction
$3,300
27
GROSS, WALTER MR. III
1 transaction
$3,300
28
HAMILTON, JAMES
1 transaction
$3,300
29
HESSERT, BILL
1 transaction
$3,300
30
JENNINGS, PATRICK
1 transaction
$3,300
31
MARSHALL, HAZEN
1 transaction
$3,300
32
MAXSON, PHIL
1 transaction
$3,300
33
MCCARTHY, CYNTHIA MRS.
1 transaction
$3,300
34
MCCARTHY, JOHN III
1 transaction
$3,300
35
MCDANIEL, MALLOY
1 transaction
$3,300
36
NESSEL, ARIEL
1 transaction
$3,300
37
SWONGER, AMY
1 transaction
$3,300
38
BERNHARDT, DAVID
1 transaction
$3,000
39
CHATTERJEE, NEIL
3 transactions
$3,000
40
HENSLER, RACHEL J. MS.
2 transactions
$3,000
41
BROWNSTEIN, NORMAN MR.
1 transaction
$2,900
42
BARENS, KRISTIN
3 transactions
$2,700
43
BYERS, KAREN MRS.
2 transactions
$2,700
44
BABBAGE, ROBERT
1 transaction
$2,500
45
BOCKORNY, DAVID
1 transaction
$2,500
46
BODE, DENISE
1 transaction
$2,500
47
CARD, BRAD
1 transaction
$2,500
48
DOWNS, RAISSA MS.
1 transaction
$2,500
49
MALONE, DAVID
3 transactions
$2,500
50
MCCULLOUGH, MARK
2 transactions
$2,500
51
MONROE, LOREN L. MR.
2 transactions
$2,500
52
PASH, JEFFREY
1 transaction
$2,500
53
PAUL, EVAN
1 transaction
$2,500
54
WALKER, TODD MR.
1 transaction
$2,500
55
JOHNSON, DENNIS B. MR.
1 transaction
$2,400
56
GUTHRIE, RONALD
1 transaction
$2,100
57
BUNDSCHUH, RUSSELL
2 transactions
$2,000
58
CHEN, RITA
1 transaction
$2,000
59
FORCHT, MARION MRS.
2 transactions
$2,000
60
FOX, VIRGINIA MRS.
1 transaction
$2,000
61
GREENBERG, RONALD
1 transaction
$2,000
62
HUBER, DAVID
1 transaction
$2,000
63
KIRKLAND, WILLIAM MR.
1 transaction
$2,000
64
KIRLIN, EMILY
2 transactions
$2,000
65
MCKECHNIE, ANDREW MR.
2 transactions
$2,000
66
MCKEONE, JAMES
2 transactions
$2,000
67
MINGOLELLI, MICHAEL
2 transactions
$2,000
68
NICKLES, DON
1 transaction
$2,000
69
PATRICK, DONNIE L. MR.
1 transaction
$2,000
70
PETERSON, CARL
2 transactions
$2,000
71
SAVARY-TAYLOR, MARY MS.
1 transaction
$2,000
72
STOUGH, JOHN A.
1 transaction
$2,000
73
TWOMEY, JOHN
2 transactions
$2,000
74
WORTH, PETER
2 transactions
$2,000
75
BUNNING, KATELYN
2 transactions
$2,000
76
NAISONPHILLIPS, ERIC
2 transactions
$2,000
77
THOMPSON, MARK
1 transaction
$1,978
78
ROSSMAN, EMANUEL M.
1 transaction
$1,600
79
BAKER, BRETT
1 transaction
$1,500
80
BENCH, RODNEY MR.
2 transactions
$1,500
81
D'ANGELO, GREGORY
1 transaction
$1,500
82
GREENBERG, RONALD J.
1 transaction
$1,500
83
HOLLAND, LUCAS
1 transaction
$1,500
84
HYGH, TIM
1 transaction
$1,500
85
MURPHY, MARK MR.
1 transaction
$1,500
86
WESTFALL, NICHOLAS
1 transaction
$1,500
87
WORRELL, WILL
2 transactions
$1,500
88
NAEGELE, WILLIAM
1 transaction
$1,318
89
NELSON, BRUCE A. MR.
1 transaction
$1,150
90
JORDAN, DAVID
1 transaction
$1,100
91
WELLS, KENDRICK III
2 transactions
$1,100
92
ABELL, KELLEY MS.
1 transaction
$1,000
93
ABRAM, ANNA
1 transaction
$1,000
94
ASHCRAFT, RAYMOND JR.
1 transaction
$1,000
95
ASHKEBOUSSI, NIMA
1 transaction
$1,000
96
BACKER, DAN
1 transaction
$1,000
97
BALDEVIA, LORRIE
1 transaction
$1,000
98
BECK, DANIELLE
1 transaction
$1,000
99
BENTLEY, JASON MR.
1 transaction
$1,000
100
BIAGI, MICHAEL
1 transaction
$1,000
101
BLALOCK, WILLIAM K MR.
1 transaction
$1,000
102
BLOODWORTH, MICHELLE
1 transaction
$1,000
103
BOWLES-DURNELL, KAYE
1 transaction
$1,000
104
BRAMER, DONALD
1 transaction
$1,000
105
BROADBENT, STEVE
1 transaction
$1,000
106
CANTOR, DREW
1 transaction
$1,000
107
CARPENTER, BRUCE MR.
1 transaction
$1,000
108
CARTER, JOHN
1 transaction
$1,000
109
CHIAPPY, CARIDAD
1 transaction
$1,000
110
CLARY, JAMES
1 transaction
$1,000
111
COHEN, DAVID
1 transaction
$1,000
112
COHN, MILTON
1 transaction
$1,000
113
CONGDON, D. BRUCE
1 transaction
$1,000
114
COOPER, JOHN
1 transaction
$1,000
115
COX, CHRIS
1 transaction
$1,000
116
COX, LAWRENCE MR.
1 transaction
$1,000
117
CREA, JOSEPH
1 transaction
$1,000
118
D'ADDONA, VINCENT
1 transaction
$1,000
119
DEVLIN, HELEN MS.
1 transaction
$1,000
120
DISCHINGER, CHRIS
1 transaction
$1,000
121
DOBCHUK, JAMES
1 transaction
$1,000
122
DOWD, JOHN
1 transaction
$1,000
123
DUNCAN, ROBERT MR.
1 transaction
$1,000
124
ELLIS, JOE DR.
1 transaction
$1,000
125
FARRELL, SEAN
1 transaction
$1,000
126
FELDER, EMILY
1 transaction
$1,000
127
FELLON, ANDREW
1 transaction
$1,000
128
FLETCHER, ERNIE
1 transaction
$1,000
129
FOYT, JAMES MR.
1 transaction
$1,000
130
GENTRY, LINDSEE
1 transaction
$1,000
131
GILLIAM, TIMOTHY
1 transaction
$1,000
132
GLASSCOCK, C. EDWARD MR.
1 transaction
$1,000
133
GORDON, STEVEN H. MR.
1 transaction
$1,000
134
GREENWALD, JORDAN
1 transaction
$1,000
135
HARNICE, PAUL
1 transaction
$1,000
136
HEBETS, JAMES
1 transaction
$1,000
137
HIPP, VAN D. MR.
1 transaction
$1,000
138
HOLLY, JOSH
1 transaction
$1,000
139
HORAN, TERRY
1 transaction
$1,000
140
HUGHES, TIMOTHY
1 transaction
$1,000
141
HULL, C. KATE MRS.
1 transaction
$1,000
142
JACKSON, PAUL
1 transaction
$1,000
143
KAPLAN, JAMES
1 transaction
$1,000
144
KELLEY, ANNE-MARIE
1 transaction
$1,000
145
KENERLY, JAMES
1 transaction
$1,000
146
KNIGHT, BRADY
1 transaction
$1,000
147
KULL, KRISTEN
1 transaction
$1,000
148
LASS, CONRAD
1 transaction
$1,000
149
LEA, JASON
1 transaction
$1,000
150
LECHNER, MARK
1 transaction
$1,000
151
LEE, JANE
2 transactions
$1,000
152
LEGG, HILDA MRS.
1 transaction
$1,000
153
LENZ, KORY
1 transaction
$1,000
154
LIVELY, GALE F. MRS.
1 transaction
$1,000
155
MALARKEY, TIMOTHY MR.
1 transaction
$1,000
156
MAXSON, SARAH
1 transaction
$1,000
157
MCGUIRE, BRIAN T.
1 transaction
$1,000
158
MOODY, DAN MR. JR.
1 transaction
$1,000
159
MOSCHELLA, WILLIAM
1 transaction
$1,000
160
MULLIN, PETER
1 transaction
$1,000
161
MUSTIN, LLOYD
1 transaction
$1,000
162
NIXON, MARY
1 transaction
$1,000
163
OLEKA, OJ
1 transaction
$1,000
164
OLSON, JENNIFER
1 transaction
$1,000
165
OWENS, LAURA MRS.
1 transaction
$1,000
166
PERRY, EDMUND
1 transaction
$1,000
167
PLYBON, ROBERT
1 transaction
$1,000
168
RAZMUS, GREGORY
1 transaction
$1,000
169
REID, RANDI
1 transaction
$1,000
170
RHEE, HELEN
1 transaction
$1,000
171
RICHARDSON, JACK L. MR. IV
1 transaction
$1,000
172
ROMAN, ELIZABETH
1 transaction
$1,000
173
ROSLEHTINEN, ILEANA
1 transaction
$1,000
174
ROSSMAN, EMANUEL
1 transaction
$1,000
175
SANDERS JR., RICHARD
1 transaction
$1,000
176
SARTELLE, PRESTON
1 transaction
$1,000
177
SCHIAPPA, DAVID
1 transaction
$1,000
178
SEALE, ROBERT
1 transaction
$1,000
179
SENDZISCHEW, ADAM
1 transaction
$1,000
180
SHUMACK, TUCKER
1 transaction
$1,000
181
SMITH, KEVIN
1 transaction
$1,000
182
SMITH, LAMAR
1 transaction
$1,000
183
STIVERS, ROBERT (JR.)
1 transaction
$1,000
184
STONE, WILLIAM MR.
1 transaction
$1,000
185
STRAUB, LOUIS II
1 transaction
$1,000
186
THORNDIKE, JOHN
1 transaction
$1,000
187
TOWERS, JONATHAN
1 transaction
$1,000
188
TRIPLETT, JOHN M. MR.
1 transaction
$1,000
189
TRUAN, STEPHEN
1 transaction
$1,000
190
TURLEY, JERI L MS.
2 transactions
$1,000
191
UNDERWOOD, JASON
1 transaction
$1,000
192
VAN DUSEN, GEORGE IV
1 transaction
$1,000
193
VERHOFF, GEOFF
1 transaction
$1,000
194
WARREN, MARK E
1 transaction
$1,000
195
WELLS, CLAUDIA
1 transaction
$1,000
196
WITT, ETHAN
1 transaction
$1,000
197
YATES, PAUL
1 transaction
$1,000
198
MORAN, ROBERT
1 transaction
$870
199
DEUSER, JACK
1 transaction
$800
200
JOHNSON, CONNIE MS.
1 transaction
$740
201
LOGAN, JOHN
1 transaction
$685
202
ORSER, DON
1 transaction
$610
203
BLALOCK, WILLIAM K. MR.
1 transaction
$600
204
EGNEW, JAMES MR.
1 transaction
$600
205
WHITE, JACK
1 transaction
$503
206
ANDERSON, FRITZ II
1 transaction
$500
207
DISPONETT, LOIS ANN MS.
1 transaction
$500
208
DUNHAM, WILL
1 transaction
$500
209
EDEN, BRENT
1 transaction
$500
210
EDWARDS, J. BRAD
1 transaction
$500
211
FORASTE, KENNETH
1 transaction
$500
212
GLICK, TYLER
1 transaction
$500
213
GROFF, NEAL MR.
1 transaction
$500
214
HARJU, LORI
1 transaction
$500
215
HARRIS, JOHN MR.
1 transaction
$500
216
IOVINO, CHARLIE A
1 transaction
$500
217
KISER, G. SCOTT
1 transaction
$500
218
LARKINS, BLAIR
1 transaction
$500
219
LEBENS, LUCIA
1 transaction
$500
220
LIPTAK, MICHAEL
1 transaction
$500
221
MASSARONE, CHARLES
1 transaction
$500
222
MEZRAH, TODD
1 transaction
$500
223
MILLS, KIRK
1 transaction
$500
224
MONCRIEF, LLOYD
1 transaction
$500
225
PADON, MICHAEL MR.
1 transaction
$500
226
PAPPAS, NORMAN
1 transaction
$500
227
PIERCE, LOU
1 transaction
$500
228
SWARTZBAUGH, ROBERT MR.
1 transaction
$500
229
THOMAS, LAUREN
1 transaction
$500
230
VANDEVELDE, RUSSELL
1 transaction
$500
231
VOGELZANG, DAN
1 transaction
$500
232
WATKINS, TANNER
1 transaction
$500
233
WHITTLE, JOSEPH
1 transaction
$500
234
WILLIAMS, ANGELA
1 transaction
$500
235
WILLIAMS, PETER
1 transaction
$500

Donor Network - Sen. McConnell, Mitch [R-KY]

PACs
Organizations
Individuals
Politicians

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

Loading...

Showing 42 nodes and 20 connections (40 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $92,400

Top Donors - Sen. McConnell, Mitch [R-KY]

Showing top 18 donors by contribution amount

18 Individuals

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 4 helped.

  • +Defense Contractorsconfidence 0.80

    Section 3 authorizes expenditures for the Committee on Armed Services, which may benefit defense contractors through increased government spending on defense-related projects.

  • Section 7 authorizes expenditures for the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, which may benefit energy infrastructure companies through increased government support for energy projects.

  • +Commercial Banksconfidence 0.60

    Section 4 authorizes expenditures for the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, which may benefit commercial banks through increased government regulation and oversight.

  • Section 5 authorizes expenditures for the Committee on Finance, which may benefit private equity and hedge funds through increased government support for financial markets.

Project 2025 Policy Matches

This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.AI-enhanced analysis provides detailed alignment ratings.

Department of Agriculture

Weak
Vector: 58%
Pages: 344-346AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"SRES 94 merely authorizes funding for Senate committees, including the Agriculture Committee, without setting any agriculture policy or directly influencing USDA programs; its connection to Project 2025's Department of Agriculture objectives is therefore only tangential."

Key themes:Senate Committee on AgricultureUSDA oversightbudget authorizationcongressional procedure

— 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).

Financial Regulatory Agencies

Minimal
Vector: 60%
Pages: 866-868AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"SRES 94 concerns internal Senate committee funding and has no substantive connection to the Project 2025 proposals for reforming SEC or CFTC financial regulatory agencies."

Key themes:no overlapunrelated

— 833 — Financial Regulatory Agencies l Eliminate all administrative proceedings (APs) within the SEC except for stop orders related to defective registration statements. The SEC enforcement system does not need to have both district court cases and APs. Alternatively, respondents should be allowed to elect whether an adjudication occurs in the SEC’s administrative law court or an ordinary Article III federal court.24 l End the practice of delegating the decision to initiate an enforcement case. The SEC Chairman—and possibly the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO)—should study whether other Commission delegation of authority to staff should be narrowed and whether sunsetting of such delegation of authority should be required. Congress should: l Require an Inspector General’s (or possibly a GAO) report regarding SEC information technology spending and contracting. Spending appears to be much too high, and IT contracting is poorly managed. l Statutorily limit the time for an investigation to two years with no extensions. Long investigations harm private parties and the quality of justice. With adequate management processes, the SEC should not need more than two years even for complicated matters. The SEC Chairman should: l Dramatically reduce the number of direct reports to the SEC Chairman. l Merge SEC offices that are performing similar functions. l Reduce the number of managers per employee. CFTC ADMINISTRATION AND IMPROVED COMMODITIES AND DERIVATIVES MARKETS Congress should: l Modernize the definition of commodity (which is now largely a laundry list of agricultural commodities)25 and clarify the treatment of digital assets. l Clarify through an express amendment to the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA)26 the circumstances that require a foreign swap trading platform to — 834 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise register with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) as a swap execution facility (SEF) under Sections 2(i)27 and 5h28 of the CEA. Currently, it is not clear whether having one or a small number of U.S. participants would require SEF registration under prior staff guidance, which has led foreign swap trading platforms to exclude all U.S. persons from their platforms or to go through the process of seeking an exemption from registration. l Amend Section 2 of the CEA to authorize the CFTC Chairman to remove the agency’s Executive Director without a Commission vote. l To augment Commissioners’ independence, establish funding amounts for the Commissioners’ offices by statute with adjustments for inflation, with no requirement for a Commissioner to obtain budget or expense approvals from the Chairman or the agency’s administrative staff. The CFTC should: l Allocate more resources to core agency functions rather than ancillary and support operations. l Replace the existing position limits rule, which reduces liquidity and makes markets more volatile, with further delegation of authority to the exchanges to set position limits and position accountability levels where appropriate for the relevant market. l Reduce overly prescriptive rules implementing the CFTC’s core principles. l Apply the definitions of “U.S. Person” and “Guarantee” in the CFTC’s 2020 rule on cross-border application of swaps regulations (2020 Cross-Border Rule)29 to the regulatory requirements that remain covered by the CFTC’s 2013 guidance on the subject (2013 Guidance).30 Currently, the definition of each of these foundational terms differs depending on whether the requirement in question is covered by the 2020 Cross-Border Rule or the 2013 Guidance. l Remove the regulatory categories of “affiliate conduit” and “foreign consolidated subsidiary” from the 2013 Guidance and the CFTC’s cross- border rule on margin for uncleared swaps,31 respectively. These categories were replaced by the concept of a “Significant Risk Subsidiary” for purposes of the 2020 Cross-Border Rule because of widespread market confusion and compliance difficulties arising from their broad and vague scope.

Department of Agriculture

Minimal
Vector: 59%
Pages: 326-328AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"SRES 94 is an administrative resolution setting expenditure limits for Senate committees and does not address agricultural policy, the Commodity Credit Corporation, farm subsidies, or any of the specific reforms outlined in the Project 2025 Department of Agriculture section."

— 294 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise to transforming the food system on its web site and other department-dis- seminated material, and it should expressly and regularly communicate the principles informing the objectives listed above, as well as promote these prin- ciples through legislative efforts. The USDA should also carefully review existing efforts that involve inappropriately imposing its preferred agricultural practices onto farmers. Address the Abuse of CCC Discretionary Authority. With the exception of federal crop insurance, the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) is generally the means by which agricultural-related farm bill programs are funded. The CCC is a funding mechanism, which, in simple terms, has $30 billion a year at its disposal.24 Section 5 of the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act (Charter Act)25 gives the Secretary of Agriculture broad discretionary authority to spend “unused” CCC money. However, in general, past Agriculture Secretaries have not used this power to any meaningful extent. This changed dramatically during the Trump Administration, when this discretionary authority was used to fund $28 billion in “trade aid” to farmers, consisting primarily of the Market Facilitation Program. In 2020, this authority was used for $20.5 billion in food purchases and income subsidies in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.26 At the time, critics warned that this use of the CCC, which in effect created a USDA slush fund, would lead future Administrations to abuse the CCC, such as by pushing climate-change policies.27 Predictably, this is precisely what the Biden Administration has done, using the discretionary authority to create programs out of whole cloth, arguably without statutory authority,28 for what it refers to as climate-smart agricultural practices.29 The merits of the various programs funded through the CCC discretionary authority is not the focus of this discussion. The major problem is that the Secre- tary of Agriculture is empowered to use a slush fund. Billions of dollars are being used for programs that Congress never envisioned or intended. Concern about this type of abuse is not new. In fact, from 2012 to 2017, Congress expressly limited the Agriculture Secretary’s discretionary spending authority under the Charter Act.30 And this was before the recent massive discretionary CCC spending occurred. The use of the discretionary power is a separation of powers problem, with Congress abrogating its spending power. This power is ripe for abuse—as could be expected with any slush fund—and it is a possible way to get around the farm bill process to achieve policy goals not secured during the legislative process. The next Administration should: l Refrain from using section 5 discretionary authority. The USDA can address this abuse on its own by following the lead of most Administrations and not using this discretionary authority. — 295 — Department of Agriculture l Promote legislative fixes to address abuse. Ideally, Congress would repeal the Secretary’s discretionary authority under section 5 of the Charter Act. There is no reason to maintain such authority. If Congress needs to spend money to assist farmers, it has legislative tools, including the farm bill and the annual appropriations process, to do so in a timely fashion. While not an ideal solution, Congress could also amend the Charter Act to require prior congressional approval through duly enacted legislation before any money is spent. At a minimum, Congress should amend the Charter Act to: l Limit spending to directly help farmers and ranchers address issues due to unforeseen events not already covered by existing programs and that constitute genuine emergencies that must be addressed immediately. l Prohibit the CCC from being used to assist parties beyond farmers and ranchers. l Clarify that spending is only to address problems that are temporary in nature and ensure that funding is targeted to address such problems. l Tighten the discretion within section 5 and identify ways for improper application of the Charter Act to be challenged in court. Reform Farm Subsidies. Too often, agricultural policy becomes synonymous with farm subsidy policy. This is unfortunate, because making them synony- mous fails to recognize that agricultural policy covers a wide range of issues, including issues that are outside the proper scope of the USDA, such as environ- mental regulation. However, there is no question that farm subsidies are an important issue within agricultural policy that should be addressed by any incoming Adminis- tration. There are several principles that even subsidy supporters would likely agree upon, including the need to reduce market distortions. Subsidies should not influence planting decisions, discourage proper risk management and innovation, incentivize planting on environmentally sensitive land, or create barriers to entry for new farmers. Farm subsidies can lead to these market distortions and there- fore, it would hardly be controversial to ensure that any subsidy scheme should be designed to avoid such problems. The overall goal should be to eliminate subsidy dependence. Despite what might be conventional wisdom, many farmers receive few to no subsidies,31 with most subsidies going to only a handful of commodities. According to the Congres- sional Research Service (CRS), from 2014 to 2016, 94 percent of farm program

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.

Full Policy Text

Related Bills