America's National Churchill Museum National Historic Landmark Act

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/hr/1945

Last Updated: July 12, 2026

America's National Churchill Museum National Historic Landmark Act

HR. 1945, 119th Congress — read as touching Real Estate.

The sponsor

Rep. Onder, Robert [R-MO-3]

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

The money

$173,188 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 Education" section, p. 395-397 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Received in the Senate.

March 3, 2026

Introduced

Committee Review

Floor Action

Passed House

Senate Review

📍 Current Status

Next: Both chambers must agree on the same version of the bill.

🎉

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:

The America's National Churchill Museum National Historic Landmark Act (HR 1945). A bill that, on the surface, appears to be a harmless tribute to Winston Churchill's legacy. However, as a seasoned analyst, I see this legislation for what it truly is – a veiled attempt to expand government control over private property and stifle innovation.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The primary objective of this bill is to designate the America's National Churchill Museum as a National Historic Landmark, effectively placing it under federal jurisdiction. This designation would grant the Secretary of the Interior authority to enter into cooperative agreements with public or private entities, ostensibly for the purpose of protecting historic resources and providing educational facilities.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** Section 3(a) designates the museum as a National Historic Landmark, while Section 3(b) authorizes the Secretary to enter into cooperative agreements. Section 4 mandates a special resource study to evaluate the national significance of the landmark and consider alternatives for its preservation.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The primary stakeholders are Westminster College, the city of Fulton, Missouri, and private entities that may be involved in cooperative agreements. However, as a billionaire with significant investments in various industries, I see this bill's implications extending far beyond these immediate parties. The precedent set by this legislation could have far-reaching consequences for property owners nationwide.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill represents a subtle yet insidious expansion of government control over private property. By designating the museum as a National Historic Landmark, the federal government gains authority to dictate how the property is managed and preserved. This sets a troubling precedent, potentially paving the way for increased regulatory oversight and decreased autonomy for private property owners.

Furthermore, this legislation's emphasis on cooperative agreements and special resource studies reeks of bureaucratic inefficiency. As someone who has built their fortune through innovative disruption, I recognize that true progress is often hindered by such red tape.

In conclusion, HR 1945 is a bill that masquerades as a tribute to Churchill's legacy but, in reality, serves as a Trojan horse for government overreach and regulatory creep. As a visionary leader, I would advise policymakers to reject this legislation and instead focus on fostering an environment that encourages innovation, entrepreneurship, and private sector growth.

Projected Impact on My Empire: -5% (due to potential increased regulatory burdens)

Recommendation: Oppose HR 1945 and advocate for policies that promote deregulation, privatization, and limited government intervention.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (billionaire personality)

*Sigh* Alright, let's break down this bill, shall we? As I taught you in 8th grade civics class, a bill is a proposed law that must go through several stages before it becomes an actual law. This particular bill, HR 1945, aims to designate the America's National Churchill Museum as a National Historic Landmark.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The main purpose of this bill is to recognize the historical significance of the America's National Churchill Museum and provide a framework for its preservation and management. The objectives are straightforward: to designate the museum as a National Historic Landmark, establish cooperative agreements for its protection and education, and conduct a special resource study to determine its suitability for inclusion in the National Park System.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill defines key terms, such as "City" (Fulton, Missouri), "College" (Westminster College), and "Landmark" (the America's National Churchill Museum). It also outlines the process for cooperative agreements between the Secretary of the Interior, the State, City, and College to protect historic resources and provide educational facilities. Section 3(c) explicitly states that designation as a National Historic Landmark will not affect property owners' rights or the administration of the landmark by local authorities.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The affected parties include the America's National Churchill Museum, Westminster College, the City of Fulton, Missouri, and the State of Missouri. Other stakeholders may include private entities, non-profit organizations, and interested individuals who will be consulted during the special resource study.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** If passed, this bill would provide a framework for preserving and promoting the historical significance of the America's National Churchill Museum. The cooperative agreements could lead to increased educational opportunities and tourism, benefiting local communities. However, as we learned in civics class, designating a landmark can also impose restrictions on property owners and local authorities. The special resource study will help determine the feasibility of including the landmark in the National Park System, which could have significant implications for its management and funding.

Now, I hope this summary has been enlightening. Remember when we learned about the legislative process in 8th grade? This bill is a perfect example of how it's supposed to work: introduction, committee review, mark-up, voting, and potential signing into law by the President. It's not exactly rocket science, folks...

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (civics_teacher personality)

Folks, gather 'round! I've got the scoop on HR 1945, and it's a doozy. On the surface, this bill seems like a harmless tribute to Winston Churchill, designating his museum in Missouri as a National Historic Landmark. But, my friends, don't be fooled. There's more to this than meets the eye.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The stated purpose is to honor Churchill and preserve the museum for future generations. However, I believe there's an ulterior motive at play here. The government is using this bill as a Trojan horse to expand its control over private property and further erode our civil liberties.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** Section 3(b) allows the Secretary of the Interior to enter into cooperative agreements with public or private entities, which could lead to the federal government exerting undue influence over local decision-making. This is a classic example of incrementalism, where the government slowly chips away at our freedoms under the guise of "preservation" and "education."

Section 4(a) mandates a special resource study, which will likely result in a plethora of new regulations and restrictions on property owners. Mark my words, this is just the beginning of a slippery slope.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The obvious stakeholders are Westminster College, the city of Fulton, Missouri, and the state government. However, I suspect there are other, more sinister forces at play. Perhaps the British government or even Churchill's own descendants have a vested interest in this designation? It wouldn't surprise me if there were some backroom deals being made to further their agendas.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill has far-reaching implications for private property rights and local autonomy. If passed, it will set a precedent for the federal government to intervene in similar situations across the country. I predict we'll see an uptick in "cooperative agreements" that benefit only the powers that be.

But here's the thing: this bill might also be a clever distraction from more pressing issues. While we're busy debating the merits of Churchill's museum, what else is happening behind closed doors? Are they quietly pushing through other legislation that will further erode our freedoms?

Stay vigilant, folks! The truth is out there, and I'll keep digging until I uncover it.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (conspiracy_uncle personality)

(With a healthy dose of sarcasm) Oh boy, folks, gather 'round! We've got a real barnburner of a bill on our hands here. HR 1945, the America's National Churchill Museum National Historic Landmark Act. (pauses for dramatic effect) Because what this country really needs is more government designations and bureaucratic red tape.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The main purpose of this bill is to designate the America's National Churchill Museum in Fulton, Missouri as a National Historic Landmark. Wow, I can barely contain my excitement. The objectives are to "protect historic resources" and provide "educational and interpretive facilities and programs" for the public. Because, you know, the American people were just clamoring for more government-funded museums.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to enter into cooperative agreements with various entities (because we love a good partnership between government and private interests) to protect the landmark and provide educational programs. It also requires a special resource study to evaluate the national significance of the landmark and consider alternatives for its preservation. Yawn.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The affected parties include the city of Fulton, Missouri, Westminster College (where the museum is located), and the State of Missouri. Oh, and let's not forget the "elites" in Washington who get to decide how our tax dollars are spent on these kinds of projects.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The potential impact of this bill? Well, it might create a few jobs for museum staff and contractors. But let's be real, folks, this is just another example of government overreach and wasteful spending. I mean, who needs freedom when you can have a fancy new museum designation? (wink) The implications are clear: more bureaucracy, more red tape, and more of our hard-earned tax dollars being spent on frivolous projects like this.

(With a smirk) But hey, at least we'll have another "national historic landmark" to add to the list. Because that's what really matters in America today – not freedom, not prosperity, but government designations and fancy titles.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (fox_host personality)

Another masterpiece of legislative theater, courtesy of the 119th Congress. Let's dissect this farce, shall we?

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The America's National Churchill Museum National Historic Landmark Act (HR 1945) is a bill that designates a museum in Fulton, Missouri as a national historic landmark. Wow, what a thrilling use of congressional time and resources. The main objective? To give a fancy title to a museum and maybe, just maybe, attract some tourists to the area.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill defines various terms, including "City" (Fulton, Missouri), "College" (Westminster College), and "Landmark" (the museum). It also authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to enter into cooperative agreements with public or private entities for the purposes of protecting historic resources and providing educational facilities. Oh, and it doesn't affect the administration of the Landmark by the State, City, or College. How reassuring.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects are involved:

* The museum itself (America's National Churchill Museum) * Westminster College * The city of Fulton, Missouri * The state of Missouri * Various federal agencies (Interior Department, etc.) * Private and nonprofit entities (because who doesn't love a good public-private partnership?)

**Potential Impact & Implications:** Let's get real here. This bill is a classic example of "feel-good" legislation designed to appease local interests and generate some positive PR for the sponsoring representatives. The impact will be negligible, except perhaps for the museum's marketing department.

In reality, this bill is likely a thinly veiled attempt to secure federal funding for the museum or surrounding area. It's a clever way to funnel taxpayer dollars into a pet project while pretending to preserve history. Meanwhile, actual pressing issues facing the nation are left unaddressed.

Diagnosis: This bill suffers from a bad case of "Legislative Attention Deficit Disorder" (LADD). Symptoms include:

* A lack of focus on meaningful policy changes * An excessive emphasis on symbolic gestures * A propensity for pork-barrel spending

Treatment: Apply a healthy dose of skepticism and scrutiny to this bill. Ask the tough questions, like "What's the real purpose behind this legislation?" and "Who benefits from this designation?"

Prognosis: This bill will likely pass with minimal fanfare, only to be forgotten in the annals of congressional history. But hey, at least the museum will get a fancy new title out of it.

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

Let's break down this bill like we're catchin' some gnarly waves, bro.

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

HR 1945 is all about designating the America's National Churchill Museum in Fulton, Missouri as a National Historic Landmark. The main objective is to recognize the significance of Winston Churchill's "Iron Curtain" speech, which he delivered at Westminster College in 1946. This landmark status will help preserve the museum and its historic resources for future generations.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

The bill defines key terms like "City," "College," "Landmark," and "Secretary." It also designates the America's National Churchill Museum as a National Historic Landmark, which includes the Winston Churchill Memorial listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The Secretary of the Interior can enter into cooperative agreements with public or private entities to protect historic resources and provide educational facilities and programs.

Here's the cool part: this designation doesn't affect the property owners' rights or the administration of the landmark by the state, city, or college. It's like, totally chill, bro.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

The stakeholders here are:

* The America's National Churchill Museum * Westminster College * The City of Fulton, Missouri * The State of Missouri * The Secretary of the Interior * Private and nonprofit entities that might partner with the Secretary

These parties will be impacted by the designation and any subsequent cooperative agreements or resource studies.

**Potential Impact & Implications**

Designating the museum as a National Historic Landmark could bring more tourists to Fulton, Missouri, which would be totally tubular for the local economy. It also ensures the preservation of this significant piece of history for future generations.

The special resource study required by the bill will evaluate the national significance of the landmark and consider alternatives for its preservation and protection. This study might lead to further action, like designating the landmark as a unit of the National Park System or providing federal funding for its maintenance.

In summary, HR 1945 is all about recognizing the importance of Winston Churchill's speech and preserving the America's National Churchill Museum for future generations. It's a chill bill that doesn't rock the boat too much, but it could have some rad implications for the local community and history buffs alike.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (surfer personality)

**Bill Analysis: HR 1945 - America's National Churchill Museum National Historic Landmark Act**

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The primary objective of HR 1945 is to designate the America's National Churchill Museum, located at Westminster College in Fulton, Missouri, as a National Historic Landmark. The bill aims to recognize the museum's significance and provide a framework for its preservation, protection, and interpretation.

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

* Designates the America's National Churchill Museum as a National Historic Landmark. * Authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to enter into cooperative agreements with public or private entities to protect historic resources and provide educational facilities and programs at the landmark. * Conducts a special resource study to evaluate the national significance of the landmark, determine its suitability for designation as a unit of the National Park System, and consider alternative preservation options.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:**

* Westminster College, which owns the museum and will be responsible for its administration. * The State of Missouri, the City of Fulton, and other local government units that may be involved in cooperative agreements or affected by the landmark's designation. * Private and nonprofit organizations that may partner with the Secretary to support the landmark's preservation and interpretation.

**Potential Impact & Implications:**

* The designation as a National Historic Landmark will likely increase tourism and visibility for the museum, potentially benefiting local businesses and the regional economy. * The special resource study may lead to recommendations for additional federal funding or resources to support the landmark's preservation and interpretation. * The bill's provisions may also set a precedent for future designations of national historic landmarks, particularly those with strong connections to notable historical figures like Winston Churchill.

**Monied Interest Analysis:** While there are no obvious monied interests directly backing this bill, it is worth noting that Westminster College has received significant funding from various sources, including the National Endowment for the Humanities and the Missouri Humanities Council. Additionally, the college's Board of Trustees includes representatives from prominent local businesses and organizations, which may have an interest in promoting tourism and economic development in the region.

**Committee Capture:** The bill was referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources, which has a history of being influenced by special interest groups representing the oil and gas industry, mining companies, and other extractive industries. However, there is no apparent connection between these interests and the America's National Churchill Museum National Historic Landmark Act.

**Hidden Motivations:** One potential motivation behind this bill is to boost local economic development through tourism, as mentioned earlier. Another possible motivation could be to promote a particular ideological or cultural agenda by highlighting Winston Churchill's legacy and promoting his values through educational programs and exhibits at the museum.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (whistleblower personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Onder, Robert [R-MO-3]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$173,188

20 donors

PACs

Organizations

Committees

Individuals

$173,188

No PAC contributions found

No organization contributions found

No committee contributions found

O'BRIEN, FRANK

1 transaction

$13,200

ONDER, JAMES G

1 transaction

$13,200

BURNS, ROBERT

1 transaction

$13,200

POGUE, RICHARD W.

1 transaction

$13,200

SCHULTE, STEVE

1 transaction

$13,200

MUELLER, DOUGLAS

1 transaction

$10,000

OBRIEN, JOHN

1 transaction

$10,000

SMITH, MENLO

1 transaction

$7,500

STOFFA, ROBERT

1 transaction

$6,870

KOVAC, AMY

1 transaction

$6,818

ASHWORTH, RONALD

1 transaction

$6,600

COYLE, JAMES

1 transaction

$6,600

KOVAC, MARK G

1 transaction

$6,600

KOVAC, SHARON ANN

1 transaction

$6,600

MORAN, ROGER

1 transaction

$6,600

MUELLER, DUANE

1 transaction

$6,600

SMITH, JEFFREY

1 transaction

$6,600

WEIER, G.W.

1 transaction

$6,600

GREWE, GARY

1 transaction

$6,600

BUCKMAN, BERNARD

1 transaction

$6,600

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 3 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Rep. Meuser, Daniel [R-PA-9]

ID: M001204

Top Contributors

PRIDE MOBILITY PRODUCTS CORP

OrganizationDURYEA, PA

$2,500

Sep 18, 2024

COTLER, YUDACUFSKI, HUEBNER

OrganizationSAINT CLAIR, PA

$1,000

Apr 23, 2024

DOWD, JOHN J

SUNDANCE VACATIONS • PRESIDENT

IndividualLEHIGHTON, PA

$6,600

Mar 25, 2024

PEYKOFF, ANDY

NIAGARA BOTTLING, LLC • CEO

IndividualLAS VEGAS, NV

$6,600

Mar 22, 2024

DOWD, JOHN J

SUNDANCE VACATIONS • PRESIDENT

IndividualLEHIGHTON, PA

$6,600

Sep 18, 2024

ROWAN, MARC J

APOLLO MANAGEMENT • MANAGEMENT

IndividualGREENWICH, CT

$6,600

Aug 23, 2023

ROWAN, CAROLYN

CAROLYN ROWAN COLLECTION • OWNER

IndividualGREENWICH, CT

$6,600

Aug 23, 2023

RICH, BRIAN R MR. JR

GILBERTON COAL CO. • EXECUTIVE SALES

IndividualCONSHOHOCKEN, PA

$6,600

Oct 24, 2024

VOLPE, ELLEN M

SELF • HOMEMAKER

IndividualWAVERLY TOWNSHIP, PA

$5,800

May 31, 2023

VOLPE, CHARLES J

EXCALIBUR INSURANCE MGMT • PRESIDENT

IndividualWAVERLY TOWNSHIP, PA

$5,800

May 31, 2023

Rep. Bacon, Don [R-NE-2]

ID: B001298

Top Contributors

ONEIDA NATION

OrganizationONEIDA, WI

$3,300

Mar 28, 2023

MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationBANNING, CA

$3,300

Mar 28, 2023

MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationBANNING, CA

$3,300

Mar 28, 2023

SAN MANUEL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationLOS ANGELES, CA

$3,300

Jun 27, 2023

ONEIDA NATION

OrganizationONEIDA, WI

$3,300

Jun 30, 2024

SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationSANTA YNEZ, CA

$2,000

Jun 27, 2023

REPUBLICAN MAIN STREET PARTNERSHIP

OrganizationWASHINGTON, DC

$1,000

Jul 11, 2024

CARSON, RUSSELL S.

THE CARSON FAMILY CHARITABLE TRUST • PHILANTHROPY

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$6,600

Apr 24, 2024

FRANK, JIM

2FILLC • EXEC

IndividualWINNETKA, IL

$6,600

Apr 23, 2024

DANIELS, BRANDON

EXIGER • CEO

IndividualRICHMOND, VA

$6,600

Apr 21, 2024

Rep. Neguse, Joe [D-CO-2]

ID: N000191

Top Contributors

AK-CHIN INDIAN COMMUNITY

OrganizationMARICOPA, AZ

$3,300

Mar 31, 2023

AK-CHIN INDIAN COMMUNITY

OrganizationMARICOPA, AZ

$2,500

Oct 13, 2024

YUROK TRIBE

OrganizationKLAMATH, CA

$1,000

Feb 1, 2023

SAN MANUEL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationLOS ANGELES, CA

$1,000

Jun 9, 2024

EKLUND, PAUL

IndividualBOULDER, CO

$6,400

Oct 3, 2023

EKLUND, PAUL

P.N. EKLUND INTERESTS INC. • REAL ESTATE

IndividualBOULDER, CO

$6,400

Sep 30, 2023

KLARMAN, SETH

THE BAUPOST GROUP • CEO

IndividualBOSTON, MA

$3,300

Oct 18, 2024

GROSS, DAVID

UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO • INSTRUCTOR

IndividualBOULDER, CO

$3,300

Oct 31, 2024

WEAVER, LINDSAY

SELF • ENGINEER

IndividualPAGOSA SPRINGS, CO

$3,300

Oct 22, 2024

BLOOM, BRADLEY

BERKSHIRE PARTNERS LLC • INVESTMENTS

IndividualWELLESLEY, MA

$3,300

Oct 21, 2024

Donor Network - Rep. Onder, Robert [R-MO-3]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

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

Showing 45 nodes and 29 connections (36 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $199,988

Top Donors - Rep. Onder, Robert [R-MO-3]

Showing top 20 donors by contribution amount

20 Individuals

Industry Impact

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

+Real Estateconfidence 0.80
Section 3(b) allows for cooperative agreements to protect historic resources and provide educational facilities at the Landmark, which could increase property value and attract tourism, benefiting local real estate developers and property managers.

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 Education

Weak

Vector: 55%

Pages: 395-397AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 1945 primarily concerns historic landmark designation and associated educational outreach, whereas Project 2025's Department of Education section focuses on reducing federal education authority and expanding school choice; the connection is limited to a general educational theme."

Key themes:educationhistoric preservationfederal involvementeducational programmingheritage tourism

— 362 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise ENDNOTES 1. Milton Friedman, The Role of Government in Education (1955), https://la.utexas.edu/users/ hcleaver/330T/350kPEEFriedmanRoleOfGovttable.pdf (accessed February 28, 2023). 2. Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, Public Law 89-10. 3. Higher Education Act of 1965, Public Law 89-329. 4. Elementary and Secondary Schools Emergency Relief Funds. 5. Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Public Law 93-112. 6. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Public Law 94-142. 7. Perkins Career and Technical Education Acts, Perkins IV, Public Law 109-270. 8. S. 510, Department of Education Organization Act, Public Law 96-88. 9. Ambassador Susan Rice, Gene Sperling, and Clarence Wardell III, Advancing Equity through the American Rescue Plan, pg. 26. May 2022, at https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/ADVANCING- EQUITY-THROUGH-THE-AMERICAN-RESCUE-PLAN.pdf (accessed February 28, 2023). 10. U.S. Department of Education, Overview and Mission Statement, https://www2.ed.gov/about/landing. jhtml#:~:text=ED's%20mission%20is%20to%20promote,offices%20from%20several%20federal%20agencies (accessed February 28, 2023). 11. Jonathan Butcher, “Who Signs Your Paycheck?” Education Next, https://www.educationnext.org/who-signs- your-paycheck-federal-influence-state-education-agencies/#_edn1 (last updated, April 9, 2018). 12. Education at a Crossroads: What Works and What’s Wasted in Education Today, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, Committee on Education and the Workforce, U.S. House of Representatives, 105th Cong., 2nd Sess., July 17, 1998, pp. xiii and xiv. 13. Every Student Succeeds Act, 20 U.S.C. § 6301 et seq. (2015). 14. 20 U.S.C. §6571. Under subchapter I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (Improving the Academic Achievement of the Disadvantaged) and Section 20 U.S.C. §1022f; 20 U.S.C. §1098a. Under Title 20, Section 1098a, of the U.S. Code, the Secretary is authorized to waive the requirement for negotiated rulemaking if he or she “determines that applying such a requirement with respect to given regulations is impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest (within the meaning of section 553(b)(3)(B) of [the APA]), and publishes the basis for such determination in the Federal Register at the same time as the proposed regulations in question are first published.” 20 U.S.C. §1098a(b)(2). Congressional Research Service, “Negotiated Rulemaking: In Brief,” April 12, 2021, https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46756 (accessed March 13, 2023). 15. H.R. 8767, Empowering Parents Act, 117th Congress. 16. H.R. 5, Parents Bill of Rights Act. 17. H.J.Res. 99, Public Law 115-30. 18. National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022. 19. National Center for Education Statistics, “Fast Facts: Title I,” https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=158 (accessed February 28, 2023).

Department of Health and Human Services

Minimal

Vector: 57%

Pages: 530-532AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on historic designation of a Churchill museum, whereas the Project 2025 HHS policy addresses healthcare access, equity, and underserved populations; there is no substantive thematic overlap."

— 498 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise ENDNOTES 1. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Strategic Plan, FY 2018–2022, p. 50, https://aspe.hhs.gov/ sites/default/files/documents/feac346aca967bfadc446398679e14ec/hhs-strategic-plan-fy-2018-2022.pdf (accessed February 7, 2023). 2. “Strategic Goal 1: Protect and Strengthen Equitable Access to High Quality and Affordable Healthcare” in ibid. “In the context of HHS, this Strategic Plan adopts the definition of underserved communities listed in Executive Order 13985: Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities through the Federal Government to refer to ‘populations sharing a particular characteristic, as well as geographic communities, who have been systematically denied a full opportunity to participate in aspects of economic, social, and civic life’; this definition includes individuals who belong to underserved communities that have been denied such treatment, such as Black, Latino, and Indigenous and Native American persons, Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders and other persons of color; members of religious minorities; lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ+) persons; persons with disabilities; persons who live in rural areas; and persons otherwise adversely affected by persistent poverty or inequality. Individuals may belong to more than one underserved community and face intersecting barriers. This definition applies to the terms underserved communities and underserved populations throughout this Strategic Plan.” Ibid. Emphasis in original. 3. Karen Weintraub, “Americans’ Life Expectancy Continues to Fall, Erasing Health Gains of the Last Quarter Century,” USA Today, December 22, 2022, https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2022/12/22/us-life- expectancy-continues-fall-erasing-25-years-health-gains/10937418002/ (accessed February 6, 2023). 4. Apoorva Mandavilli, “The C.D.C. Isn’t Publishing Large Portions of the Data It Collects,” The New York Times, updated February 22, 2022, https://www.congress.gov/117/meeting/house/114450/documents/HHRG-117- IF02-20220302-SD004.pdf (accessed March 22, 2023). 5. Zachary B. Sluzala and Edmund F. Haislmaier, “Lessons from COVID-19: How Policymakers Should Reform the Regulation of Clinical Testing,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 3696, March 28, 2022, https://www. heritage.org/public-health/report/lessons-covid-19-how-policymakers-should-reform-the-regulation-clinical. 6. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (C),” https://www.cdc.gov/maso/pdf/cdcmiss.pdf (March 16, 2023). 7. Judith Garber, “CDC ‘Disclaimers’ Hide Financial Conflicts of Interest,” Lown Institute Accountability Blog, November 6, 2019, https://lowninstitute.org/cdc-disclaimers-hide-financial-conflicts-of-interest/ (accessed February 6, 2023). See also U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “CDC Foundation Active Programs (October 1, 2014–September 30, 2015),” https://www. cdcfoundation.org/sites/default/files/upload/pdf/CDCFoundation-ActivePrograms-FY2015.pdf (accessed February 7, 2023); “CDC Active Programs (October 1, 2015–September 30, 2016),” https://www.cdcfoundation. org/sites/default/files/upload/pdf/CDCFoundation-ActivePrograms-FY2016.pdf (accessed February 7, 2023); “CDC Foundation Active Programs (October 1, 2016–September 30, 2017),” https://www.cdcfoundation.org/ sites/default/files/upload/pdf/CDCFoundation-ActivePrograms-FY2017.pdf (accessed February 7, 2023); “CDC Foundation Active Programs (October 1, 2017–September 30, 2018),” https://www.cdcfoundation.org/sites/default/ files/upload/pdf/CDCFoundation-ActivePrograms-FY2018.pdf (accessed February 7, 2023); “CDC Foundation Active Programs, October 1, 2018–September 30, 2019,” https://www.cdcfoundation.org/sites/default/files/upload/ pdf/CDCFoundation-ActivePrograms-FY2019.pdf (accessed February 7, 2023); “CDC Foundation Active Programs, October 1, 2029–September 30, 2020,” https://www.cdcfoundation.org/CDCF-ActivePrograms-CDC-FY20?inline (accessed February 7, 2023); and “CDC Foundation Active Programs, October 1, 2020–September 30, 2021,” https://www.cdcfoundation.org/CDCF-ActivePrograms-CDC-FY21?inline (accessed February 7, 2023). 8. Joel White and Doug Badger, “In Order to Defeat COVID-19, the Federal Government Must Modernize Its Public Health Data,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 3527, September 3, 2020, https://www.heritage. org/sites/default/files/2020-09/BG3527_0.pdf. 9. S. 15, Ensuring Accurate and Complete Abortion Data Reporting Act of 2023, 118th Congress, introduced January 23, 2023, https://www.congress.gov/118/bills/s15/BILLS-118s15is.pdf (accessed March 22, 2023), and H.R. 632, Ensuring Accurate and Complete Abortion Data Reporting Act of 2023, 118th Congress, introduced January 30, 2023, https://www.congress.gov/118/bills/hr632/BILLS-118hr632ih.pdf (accessed March 22, 2023). 10. Doug Badger, “How Congress Can Make Real Progress on Drug Prices,” Heritage Foundation Issue Brief No. 5016, December 9, 2019, https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/2019-12/IB5016_1.pdf. — 499 — Department of Health and Human Services 11. Sluzala and Haislmaier, “Lessons From COVID-19: How Policymakers Should Reform the Regulation of Clinical Testing.” 12. Ibid. 13. H.R. 5471, Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988, Public Law No. 100-578, 100th Congress, October 31, 1988, https://uscode.house.gov/statutes/pl/100/578.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 14. Sluzala and Haislmaier, “Lessons From COVID-19: How Policymakers Should Reform the Regulation of Clinical Testing.” 15. Edmund F. Haislmaier, “Ensuring Americans’ Access to Pharmaceuticals: A Primer and Road Map for Policymakers,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 3545, October 20, 2020, https://www.heritage.org/ sites/default/files/2020-10/BG3545.pdf. 16. 18 U.S.C. 1461, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1461 (accessed March 16, 2023), and 18 U.S.C. 1462, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1462 (accessed March 16, 2023). 17. H.R. 1308, Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, Public Law No. 103-141, 103rd Congress, November 16, 1993, https://www.congress.gov/103/statute/STATUTE-107/STATUTE-107-Pg1488.pdf (accessed March 18, 2023). 18. Charles Piller, “Is FDA’s Revolving Door Open Too Wide?” Science, Vol. 361, No. 6397 (July 6, 2018), p. 21, https://www.science.org/doi/epdf/10.1126/science.361.6397.21 (accessed February 6, 2023). 19. Joel Achenbach, “NIH Halts $100 Million Study of Moderate Drinking That Is Funded by Alcohol Industry,” The Washington Post, May 17, 2018, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2018/05/17/nih- halts-controversial-study-of-moderate-drinking/ (accessed February 6, 2023). 20. Alexander Tin, “Moderna Offers NIH Co-ownership of COVID Vaccine Patent amid Dispute with Government,” CBS News, November 15, 2021, https://www.cbsnews.com/news/moderna-covid-vaccine-patent-dispute- national-institutes-health/ (accessed February 6, 2023). 21. Informed Consent Action Network, “NIH Officials Profiting from COVID-19 Vaccine,” June 3, 2021, https://www. icandecide.org/nih-officials-profiting-from-covid-19-vaccine/ (accessed February 6, 2023). 22. Adam Andrzejewski, “Substack Investigation: Fauci’s Royalties and the $350 Million Royalty Payment Stream HIDDEN by NIH,” Open the Books Substack, May 9, 2022, https://openthebooks.substack. com/p/faucis-royalties-and-the-350-million?utm_source=/profile/24758236-adam-andrzejewski&utm_ medium=reader2&s=w (accessed February 6, 2023). 23. Robert E. Moffit, “Time to Reverse Hospital Market Consolidation,” Heritage Foundation Commentary, January 5, 2022, https://www.heritage.org/health-care-reform/commentary/time-reverse-hospital-market-consolidation. 24. H.R. 3590, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Public Law No. 111-148, 111th Congress, March 23, 2021, https://www.congress.gov/111/plaws/publ148/PLAW-111publ148.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 25. Brian J. Miller, Robert E. Moffit, James Ficke, Joseph Marine, and Jesse Ehrenfeld, “Reversing Hospital Consolidation: The Promise of Physician-Owned Hospitals,” Health Affairs Forefront, April 12, 2021, https:// www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/forefront.20210408.980640/ (accessed February 13, 2023). 26. Robert E. Moffit, “Medicare’s Future: Challenges and Opportunities,” testimony before the Special Committee on Aging, U.S. Senate, November 21, 2022, https://www.heritage.org/testimony/medicares-future-challenges- and-opportunities. 27. 42 U.S. Code § 256b, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/256b (accessed March 16, 2023). 28. H.R. 3590, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, § 3022. 29. H.R. 5376, Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, Public Law No. 117-169, 117th Congress, August 16, 2022, https:// www.congress.gov/117/plaws/publ169/PLAW-117publ169.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 30. Robert E. Moffit, “Reducing Patient Access to New Medications Is the Left’s Latest Medicare Price-Fixing Scheme,” Heritage Foundation Commentary, July 22, 2022, https://www.heritage.org/medicare/commentary/ reducing-patient-access-new-medications-the-lefts-latest-medicare-price-fixing, and Badger, “How Congress Can Make Real Progress on Drug Prices.” 31. Nina Owcharenko Schaefer, “Medicaid at 55: Understanding the Design, Trends, and Reforms Needed to Improve the Health Care Safety Net,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 3604, April 14, 2021, https:// www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/2021-04/BG3604_0.pdf, and Brian C. Blase, “Punishing Conservative States: Payment Cuts to Hospitals Where Federal Spending Is Already Low,” Paragon Health Institute, December 2021, https://paragoninstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Punishing-Conservative-States- HTML.html (accessed February 13, 2023).

Department of Defense

Minimal

Vector: 56%

Pages: 161-163AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill concerns historic landmark designation for a Churchill museum, while the Project 2025 DoD section focuses on defense strategy, intelligence, and military affairs, with no substantive connection."

— 128 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise ENDNOTES 1. U.S. Constitution, Preamble, https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/preamble/ (accessed February 16, 2023). 2. U.S. Constitution, Article I, § 8, https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-1/ (accessed February 16, 2023). 3. U.S. Constitution, Article II, § 2, https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-2/ (accessed February 16, 2023). 4. Established pursuant to S. 1605, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022, Public Law No. 117-81, 117th Congress, December 27, 2021, Division A, Title X, § 1004, https://www.congress.gov/117/plaws/publ81/ PLAW-117publ81.pdf (accessed February 16, 2023). 5. H.R. 3684, Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, Public Law No. 117-58, 117th Congress, November 15, 2021, Division G, Title IX, §§ 70901–70953, https://www.congress.gov/117/plaws/publ58/PLAW-117publ58.pdf (accessed February 16, 2023). 6. S. 2943, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, Public Law 114-328, 114th Congress, December 23, 2016, Division A, Title IX, § 901, https://www.congress.gov/114/statute/STATUTE-130/STATUTE-130-Pg2000. pdf (accessed February 16, 2023). 7. H.R. 3622, Goldwater–Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986, Public Law No. 99-433, 99th Congress, October 1, 1986, https://www.congress.gov/99/statute/STATUTE-100/STATUTE-100-Pg992.pdf (accessed February 16, 2023). 8. U.S. Department of Defense, Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Historical Sales Book, Fiscal Years 1950–2021, p. 7, https://www.dsca.mil/sites/default/files/dsca_historical_sales_book_FY21.pdf (accessed February 15, 2023). 9. Paul K. Kerr, “Arms Sales: Congressional Review Process,” Congressional Research Service Report for Members and Committees of Congress No. RL31675, updated June 10, 2022, p. 1, https://sgp.fas.org/crs/weapons/ RL31675.pdf (accessed February 15, 2023). 10. Keith Webster, “How to Reform America’s Military Sales Process,” The Hill Congress Blog, October 6, 2022, https://thehill.com/opinion/congress-blog/3675933-how-to-reform-americas-military-sales-process/ (accessed February 15, 2023). 11. See Thomas W. Spoehr, “The Administration and Congress Must Act Now to Counter the Worsening Military Recruiting Crisis, Heritage Foundation Issue Brief No. 5283, July 28, 2022, https://www.heritage.org/sites/ default/files/2022-07/IB5283.pdf. 12. Ibid. 13. Ronald Reagan Institute, “Reagan National Defense Survey,” conducted November 2021, p. 4, https://www. reaganfoundation.org/media/358085/rndf_survey_booklet.pdf (accessed February 16, 2023). 14. See Paul J. Larkin, “Protecting the Nation by Employing Military Spouses,” Heritage Foundation Commentary, June 6, 2019, https://www.heritage.org/jobs-and-labor/commentary/protecting-the-nation-employing- military-spouses. 15. See Jude Schwalbach, “Military Families Deserve Flexible Education Options,” Heritage Foundation Commentary, April 14, 2021, https://www.heritage.org/education/commentary/military-families-deserve- flexible-education-options. 16. See Chapter 7, “The Intelligence Community,” infra. 17. The Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA); the National Security Agency (NSA); the National Geospatial- Intelligence Agency (NGA); the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO); and the intelligence and counterintelligence elements of the military services: U.S. Air Force Intelligence, U.S. Navy Intelligence, U.S. Army Intelligence, and U.S. Marine Corps Intelligence, which also receive guidance and oversight from the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence (USDI). 18. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). 19. The Department of Energy’s Office of Intelligence and Counterintelligence; the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Intelligence and Analysis and the intelligence and counterintelligence elements of the U.S. Coast Guard; the Department of Justice’s Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Drug Enforcement Administration’s Office of National Security Intelligence; the Department of State’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research; and the Department of the Treasury’s Office of Intelligence and Analysis. — 129 — Department of Defense 20. Staff Study, IC21: Intelligence Community in the 21st Century, Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, U.S. House of Representatives, 104th Congress, 1996, p. 71, https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA315088.pdf (accessed February 15, 2023). 21. Ronald O’Rourke, “Great Power Competition: Implications for Defense—Issues for Congress,” Congressional Research Service Report for Members and Committees of Congress No. R43838, updated November 8, 2022, https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R43838/93 (accessed February 15, 2023). 22. U.S. Government Accountability Office, Defense Intelligence and Security: DOD Needs to Establish Oversight Expectations and to Develop Tools That Enhance Accountability, GAO-21-295, May 2021, https://www.gao.gov/ assets/gao-21-295.pdf (accessed February 15, 2023). 23. The U.S. military has a long history of providing support to civil authorities, particularly in response to disasters but for other purposes as well. The Defense Department currently defines defense support of civil authorities (DSCA) as “Support provided by U.S. Federal military forces, DoD civilians, DoD contract personnel, DoD Component assets, and National Guard forces (when the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Governors of the affected States, elects and requests to use those forces in Title 32, U.S.C., status) in response to requests for assistance from civil authorities for domestic emergencies, law enforcement support, and other domestic activities, or from qualifying entities for special events. Also known as civil support.” U.S. Department of Defense, Directive No. 3025.18, “Defense Support of Civil Authorities (DSCA),” December 29, 2010, p. 16, https://www.dco.uscg.mil/Portals/9/CG-5R/nsarc/DoDD%203025.18%20Defense%20Support%20 of%20Civil%20Authorities.pdf (accessed February 15, 2023). 24. U.S. Army, “Who We Are: The Army’s Vision and Strategy,” https://www.army.mil/about/ (accessed February 17, 2023). 25. “[T]he Army’s internal assessment must be balanced against its own statements that unit training is focused on company-level operations [reflective of counterintelligence requirements] rather than battalion or brigade operations [much less division or corps to meet large-scale ground combat operations against a peer competitor such as Russia or China]. Consequently, how these ‘ready’ brigade combat teams would perform in combat operations is an open question.” “Executive Summary” in 2023 Index of U.S. Military Strength, ed. Dakota L. Wood (Washington: The Heritage Foundation, 2023), p. 16, http://thf_media.s3.amazonaws. com/2022/Military_Index/2023_IndexOfUSMilitaryStrength.pdf (accessed February 15, 2023). 26. For background on the USN’s fleet size, see Brent D. Sadler, “Rebuilding America’s Military: The United States Navy,” Heritage Foundation Special Report No. 242, February 18, 2021, https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/ files/2021-02/SR242.pdf, and Ronald O’Rourke, “Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress,” Congressional Research Service Report for Members and Committees of Congress No. RL32665, December 21, 2022, https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RL/RL32665 (accessed February 15, 2023). 27. The Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS) is the process by which the services develop and the Joint Staff approves the requirements for major defense acquisitions. See Defense Acquisition University, “Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDA),” https://www.dau. edu/acquipedia/pages/articledetails.aspx#!371 (accessed February 15, 2023). 28. The board would seek to balance a mix of active military and civilians with expertise in and responsibility for major acquisitions and former military and civilians with experience in strategy and acquisitions. The proposed composition would include the Vice Chief of Naval Operations as Chairman, with three-star level membership from the Joint Staff, the Navy and Defense Acquisition Executives, and the Naval Sea Systems Command. In addition, there would be four-star retired naval officers/Navy civil servants as members, one each named by the Chairmen of the House and Senate Armed Services Committees, the Secretary of the Navy, and the Secretary of Defense. Finally, there would be a member appointed by the Secretary of the Navy who had previous senior experience in the defense industry. 29. See James Mattis, Secretary of Defense, Summary of the 2018 National Defense Strategy of the United States of America: Sharpening the American Military’s Competitive Edge, U.S. Department of Defense, https:// dod.defense.gov/Portals/1/Documents/pubs/2018-National-Defense-Strategy-Summary.pdf (accessed February 17, 2023), and U.S. Department of Defense, 2022 National Defense Strategy of the United States of America Including the 2022 Nuclear Posture Review and the 2022 Missile Defense Review, https://oldcc.gov/ resource/2022-national-defense-strategy (accessed February 17, 2023).

Department of Defense

Minimal

Vector: 56%

Pages: 161-163AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 1945 focuses on historic designation and educational outreach for a Churchill museum, which shares no substantive themes with the Department of Defense policy objectives outlined in Project 2025."

Department of Housing and Urban Development

Minimal

Vector: 55%

Pages: 548-550AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 1945 focuses on historic landmark designation for a Churchill museum, which is unrelated to the Project 2025 HUD policy concerning homelessness and Housing First directives."

Key themes:none

— 516 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 37. HUD should implement administrative changes in regulation and guidance and seek statutory authority to end all Housing First directives of Continuum of Care (CoC) grantees and contract homelessness providers in addition to establishing restrictions on local Housing First policies where HUD grant funds are used. 38. The U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness (USICH) was established in the 1990s, and numerous Administrations have devoted enormous resources to the Housing First model, experimenting with various ways to provide federally financed rapid rehousing and permanent housing opportunities. Housing First is a far-left idea premised on the belief that homelessness is primarily circumstantial rather than behavioral. The Housing First answer to homelessness is to give someone a house instead of attempting to understand the underlying causes of homelessness. Federal intervention centered on Housing First has failed to acknowledge that resolving the issue of homelessness is often a matter of resolving mental health and substance abuse challenges. Instead of the permanent supportive housing proffered by Housing First, a conservative Administration should shift to transitional housing with a focus on addressing the underlying issues that cause homelessness in the first place. 39. The Senate Low-Income First-Time Homebuyers (LIFT) Act would address this policy goal. See S. 2797, Low-Income First-Time Homebuyers Act of 2021 (LIFT Homebuyers Act of 2021), 117th Congress, introduced September 22, 2021, https://www.congress.gov/117/bills/s2797/BILLS-117s2797is.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023). 40. FHA did not facilitate the widespread use of 30-year mortgages until the 1950s when, interacting with Federal Reserve policies, federal agencies began broader adoption of the mortgages, which, despite lowering the monthly repayment terms, result in slow equity accumulation and wealth-building opportunities. 41. The Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 fundamentally revised the scope of federal regulation in the nation’s housing finance system, placing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac under the purview of a newly established Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) and establishing a Housing Trust Fund (HTF) that is administered in the HUD Office of Community Planning and Development. See H.R. 3221, Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008, Public Law No. 110-289, 110th Congress, July 30, 2008, https://www.congress. gov/110/plaws/publ289/PLAW-110publ289.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023). 42. Guiding questions: What reforms should be proposed that could be accomplished within five years? What reforms can be done administratively, and what reforms would need legislative authorization? Are there functions that HUD administers that could be achieved more effectively at another department or agency? What big-picture reforms should be proposed that might take more than five years that would reorganize HUD and its programs to meet the objectives in the vision or mission? What would occur in the absence of these public finance subsidies? How much crowd-out do these subsidies create in the market? Would America be a seriously underhoused nation without these subsidies? Who are the policies intended to benefit? What organizational changes must be made? 43. The Faircloth Amendment (Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998) amended the Housing Act of 1937 to maintain public housing units at 1999 levels, preventing housing authorities from maintaining more public housing than they did then. H.R. 4194, Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999, Public Law No. 105-276, 105th Congress, October 21, 1998, Title V, https://www.congress.gov/105/plaws/publ276/PLAW-105publ276.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023). In recent years, the statutory restriction on new construction of public housing units has been circumvented through some narrow uses of preservation programs such as the Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD) program, initially authorized in 2012 and reauthorized several times since under higher program unit conversion caps. Congress also provided paths for renewal and continuation of a portion of existing public housing; project/site-based housing stock (refinancing with long-term HAP contract commitments); and Section 8 units through the Multifamily Assisted Housing Reform and Affordability Act of 1997 (MAHRA). H.R. 2158, Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 1998, Public Law No. 105-65, 105th Congress, October 27, 1997, Title V, https://www.congress.gov/105/plaws/publ65/PLAW-105publ65.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023). 44. As the evolution of HUD rental assistance transitions away from the public housing model toward housing choice vouchers, there should be adequate landlord participation to ensure that the supply of housing units for rent in these programs meets the demand for rent among eligible tenants. This issue has been addressed in various ways, including by a task force instituted at the department during the Trump Administration, but could likely remain a challenge in the administration of the program. — 517 — 16 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR William Perry Pendley The U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) oversees, manages, and protects the nation’s natural resources and cultural heritage; provides scientific and other information about those resources; and honors the nation’s trust responsibilities or special commitments to American Indians, Alaska Natives, and affiliated island communities. AGENCY OVERVIEW DOI’s purview encompasses more than 500 million acres of federal lands, including national parks and national wildlife refuges; 700 million acres of sub- surface minerals; 1.7 billion acres of the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS); 23 percent of the nation’s energy; water in 17 western states; and trust responsibilities for 566 Indian tribes and Alaska Natives. DOI’s 2024 budget request totals $18.9 billion, an increase of $2 billion, or 12 percent, more than the 2023 enacted level. The budget also provides an estimated $12.6 billion in permanent funding in 2024. In 2024, DOI will generate receipts of $19.6 billion. A “Home Department” had been considered in 1789 and urged by Presidents over the decades until DOI’s creation in 1849. The variety of its early responsibil- ities—the Indian Bureau, the General Land Office, the Bureau of Pensions, and the Patent Office, among others—earned it various nicknames, including “Great Miscellany,” “hydra-headed monster,” and “Mother of Departments.”1 Its mission became more focused on natural resources with the rise of the conservation move- ment in the early 20th century; however, it kept its historic (since the days of the Founding Fathers) role as overseer of vast working landscapes involving grazing,

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 Rep. Onder, Robert

Chloe Cole Act of 2026

119/hr/7651

Health DATA Act of 2026

119/hr/9228

To make technical amendments to title 49, United States Code, as necessary to improve the Code.

119/hr/4523

Back to All Bills