Authorizing the use of Emancipation Hall in the Capitol Visitor Center for an event to unveil the statue of Barbara Rose Johns.
Download PDFSponsored by
Rep. Wittman, Robert J. [R-VA-1]
ID: W000804
Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law
Track this bill's progress through the legislative process
Latest Action
Invalid Date
Introduced
📍 Current Status
Next: The bill will be reviewed by relevant committees who will debate, amend, and vote on it.
Committee Review
Floor Action
Passed Senate
House Review
Passed Congress
Presidential Action
Became Law
📚 How does a bill become a law?
1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.
2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.
3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.
4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.
5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.
6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.
7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!
Bill Summary
(sigh) Oh joy, another thrilling episode of Congressional Theater, where our esteemed representatives pretend to care about something other than their own self-interest.
**Main Purpose & Objectives:** (rolls eyes) The main purpose of this bill is to authorize the use of Emancipation Hall in the Capitol Visitor Center for an event to unveil a statue of Barbara Rose Johns. Wow, what a monumental achievement. I'm sure this will be a game-changer for the nation.
**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** (sarcastic tone) Oh boy, there's a real doozy here. The bill authorizes the use of Emancipation Hall on December 16, 2025, for an event that will undoubtedly be a lavish waste of taxpayer dollars. And, in a shocking display of bureaucratic efficiency, physical preparations for the event will be carried out according to conditions prescribed by the Architect of the Capitol. Because, you know, we can't have anything happen without a committee and a dozen permits.
**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** (disdainful tone) Let's see... who are the real beneficiaries here? Barbara Rose Johns' family, perhaps? Or maybe it's the contractors who will get to inflate their prices for the "physical preparations"? Oh wait, I forgot – it's actually the politicians who get to grandstand and pretend to care about civil rights while they're really just angling for photo ops.
**Potential Impact & Implications:** (deadpan) This bill has far-reaching implications. It will undoubtedly inspire a new generation of Americans to... attend events in Emancipation Hall. And, if we're lucky, it might even lead to more statues being erected, further cluttering our nation's capital with tributes to people who actually accomplished something.
Diagnosis: This bill is a classic case of "Legislative Narcissism," where politicians use taxpayer dollars to feed their own egos and pretend to care about issues that don't actually matter. The real disease here is the corruption and self-aggrandizement that infects our government, but hey, at least we'll have a nice statue to show for it.
Treatment: (shrugs) Same as always – more of the same empty rhetoric, followed by a healthy dose of taxpayer-funded waste. Just another day in the life of our esteemed Congress.
Related Topics
💰 Campaign Finance Network
Rep. Wittman, Robert J. [R-VA-1]
Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle
No committee contributions found
Donor Network - Rep. Wittman, Robert J. [R-VA-1]
Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.
Showing 20 nodes and 24 connections
Total contributions: $151,800
Top Donors - Rep. Wittman, Robert J. [R-VA-1]
Showing top 19 donors by contribution amount
Project 2025 Policy Matches
This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document. Higher similarity scores indicate stronger thematic connections.
Introduction
— xxix — Contributors Marlo Lewis, Competitive Enterprise Institute Ben Lieberman, Competitive Enterprise Institute John Ligon Evelyn Lim, American Cornerstone Institute Mario Loyola, Competitive Enterprise Institute John G. Malcolm, The Heritage Foundation Joseph Masterman, Cooper & Kirk, PLLC Earl Matthews, The Vandenberg Coalition Dan Mauler, Heritage Action for America Drew McCall, American Cornerstone Institute Trent McCotter, Boyden Gray & Associates Micah Meadowcroft, The American Conservative Edwin Meese III, The Heritage Foundation Jessica Melugin, Competitive Enterprise Institute Frank Mermoud, Orpheus International Mark Miller, Office of Governor Kristi Noem Cleta Mitchell, Conservative Partnership Institute Kevin E. Moley Caitlin Moon, American Center for Law & Justice Clare Morell, Ethics and Public Policy Center Mark Morgan, The Heritage Foundation Hunter Morgen, American Cornerstone Institute Rachel Morrison, Ethics and Public Policy Center Jonathan Moy, The Heritage Foundation Iain Murray, Competitive Enterprise Institute Ryan Nabil, National Taxpayers Union Michael Nasi, Jackson Walker LLP Lucien Niemeyer, The Niemeyer Group, LLC Nazak Nikakhtar Milan “Mitch” Nikolich Matt O’Brien, Immigration Reform Law Institute Caleb Orr, Boyden Gray & Associates Michael Pack Leah Pedersen Michael Pillsbury, The Heritage Foundation Patrick Pizzella, Leadership Institute Robert Poole, Reason Foundation Christopher B. Porter Kevin Preskenis, Allymar Health Solutions Pam Pryor, National Committee for Religious Freedom Thomas Pyle, Institute for Energy Research John Ratcliffe, American Global Strategies — xxx — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Paul Ray, The Heritage Foundation Joseph Reddan, Flexilis Forestry, LLC Jay W. Richards, The Heritage Foundation Jordan Richardson, Heise Suarez Melville, P.A. Jason Richwine, Center for Immigration Studies Shaun Rieley, The American Conservative Lora Ries, The Heritage Foundation Leo Rios Mark Robeck, Energy Evolution Consulting LLC James Rockas, ACLJ Action Mark Royce, NOVA-Annandale College Reed Rubinstein, America First Legal Foundation William Ruger, American Institute for Economic Research Austin Ruse, Center for Family and Human Rights (C-Fam) Brent D. Sadler, The Heritage Foundation Alexander William Salter, Texas Tech University Jon Sanders, John Locke Foundation Carla Sands, America First Policy Institute Robby Stephany Saunders, Coalition for a Prosperous America David Sauve Brett D. Schaefer, The Heritage Foundation Nina Owcharenko Schaefer, The Heritage Foundation Matt Schuck, American Cornerstone Institute Justin Schwab, CGCN Law Jon Schweppe, American Principles Project Marc Scribner, Reason Foundation Darin Selnick, Selnick Consulting Josh Sewell, Taxpayers for Common Sense Kathleen Sgamma, Western Energy Alliance Matt Sharp, Alliance Defending Freedom Judy Shelton, Independent Institute Nathan Simington Loren Smith, Skyline Policy Risk Group Zack Smith, The Heritage Foundation Jack Spencer, The Heritage Foundation Adrienne Spero, U.S. House Committee on Homeland Security Thomas W. Spoehr, The Heritage Foundation Peter St Onge, The Heritage Foundation Chris Stanley, Functional Government Initiative Paula M. Stannard Parker Stathatos, Texas Public Policy Foundation William Steiger, Independent Consultant
Introduction
— xxix — Contributors Marlo Lewis, Competitive Enterprise Institute Ben Lieberman, Competitive Enterprise Institute John Ligon Evelyn Lim, American Cornerstone Institute Mario Loyola, Competitive Enterprise Institute John G. Malcolm, The Heritage Foundation Joseph Masterman, Cooper & Kirk, PLLC Earl Matthews, The Vandenberg Coalition Dan Mauler, Heritage Action for America Drew McCall, American Cornerstone Institute Trent McCotter, Boyden Gray & Associates Micah Meadowcroft, The American Conservative Edwin Meese III, The Heritage Foundation Jessica Melugin, Competitive Enterprise Institute Frank Mermoud, Orpheus International Mark Miller, Office of Governor Kristi Noem Cleta Mitchell, Conservative Partnership Institute Kevin E. Moley Caitlin Moon, American Center for Law & Justice Clare Morell, Ethics and Public Policy Center Mark Morgan, The Heritage Foundation Hunter Morgen, American Cornerstone Institute Rachel Morrison, Ethics and Public Policy Center Jonathan Moy, The Heritage Foundation Iain Murray, Competitive Enterprise Institute Ryan Nabil, National Taxpayers Union Michael Nasi, Jackson Walker LLP Lucien Niemeyer, The Niemeyer Group, LLC Nazak Nikakhtar Milan “Mitch” Nikolich Matt O’Brien, Immigration Reform Law Institute Caleb Orr, Boyden Gray & Associates Michael Pack Leah Pedersen Michael Pillsbury, The Heritage Foundation Patrick Pizzella, Leadership Institute Robert Poole, Reason Foundation Christopher B. Porter Kevin Preskenis, Allymar Health Solutions Pam Pryor, National Committee for Religious Freedom Thomas Pyle, Institute for Energy Research John Ratcliffe, American Global Strategies
Introduction
— 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). — 544 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 94. 32 U.S. Code, ch. 52. 95. Donald J. Trump, “Presidential Memorandum on Promoting the Reliable Supply and Delivery of Water in the West,” October 19, 2018, https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/presidential-actions/presidential- memorandum-promoting-reliable-supply-delivery-water-west/ (accessed March 17, 2023). 96. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Land Buy-Back Program for Tribal Nations,” https://www.doi.gov/ buybackprogram (accessed March 18, 2023). 97. Great American Outdoors Act, Public Law 116–152.
Showing 3 of 5 policy matches
About These Correlations
Policy matches are calculated using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text. A score of 60% or higher indicates meaningful thematic overlap. This does not imply direct causation or intent, but highlights areas where legislation aligns with Project 2025 policy objectives.