Destruction of Hazardous Imports Act

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/hr/2715

Last Updated: August 19, 2026

Destruction of Hazardous Imports Act

HR. 2715, 119th Congress — read as touching Pharmaceuticals.

The sponsor

Rep. Higgins, Clay [R-LA-3]

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

The money

$66,200 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 Homeland Security" section, p. 183-185 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 and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.

July 20, 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 Destruction of Hazardous Imports Act, HR 2715, is a bill that warrants scrutiny through the lens of its implications on my interests and the broader landscape of wealth consolidation.

1. **Main Purpose & Objectives**: The primary objective of this legislation is to grant the Secretary of Health and Human Services the authority to order the destruction of imported articles deemed to pose significant public health concerns, without providing the owner or consignee with the option for export. This move could potentially disrupt supply chains and impact profitability for certain industries.

2. **Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**: The bill amends the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act by adding a new section that allows for the destruction of refused articles presenting significant public health risks. It also outlines procedures for due process, including notice and an opportunity for the affected parties to introduce testimony against the destruction order. Furthermore, it introduces penalties for unauthorized movement or introduction into interstate commerce of articles subject to destruction orders.

3. **Affected Parties & Stakeholders**: The primary stakeholders include importers, manufacturers, and distributors of goods that could be deemed hazardous. Additionally, regulatory bodies such as the FDA will play a crucial role in implementing these changes. My own interests, given my substantial investments in pharmaceutical and biotech sectors, could be impacted by the increased regulatory scrutiny and potential destruction of imports.

4. **Potential Impact & Implications**: The bill's passage could lead to increased costs for compliance and potential losses due to the destruction of goods. It may also create opportunities for consolidation within affected industries, as smaller players may struggle to adapt to the new regulatory environment. From my perspective, this could be a strategic moment to leverage my influence and resources to shape the regulatory landscape in favor of my interests. The projected impact on my portfolio could range from a 5% to 10% adjustment, depending on how effectively I can navigate these changes. It's also worth noting that such legislation underscores the inefficiencies of democratic processes in addressing complex issues like public health and trade. A more streamlined, privatized approach to regulation could potentially yield more effective and efficient outcomes, aligning with my long-held belief in the superiority of market-driven solutions over bureaucratic oversight.

Related Topics

Water & Air Quality Regulations

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (billionaire personality)

As we covered in 8th grade, the process of how a bill becomes a law is quite straightforward - or at least, it's supposed to be. Remember when we learned about the importance of committees and the role they play in shaping legislation? Well, let's take a look at HR 2715, the Destruction of Hazardous Imports Act, which has been referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.

The main purpose of this bill is to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, granting the Secretary of Health and Human Services the authority to destroy articles that pose a significant public health concern. This is a key provision, as it extends the destruction authority beyond just refused imports. As I taught you, the legislative process involves introducing a bill, referring it to committee, marking it up, and then voting on it - but in reality, it's often more complicated than that.

The key changes to existing law include allowing the Secretary to issue orders for destruction without the opportunity for export, and holding owners or consignees responsible for the costs of destruction. The bill also amends Section 301 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to prohibit unauthorized movement or introduction of articles subject to destruction orders. You should recall from middle school that laws are meant to be enforced, but in practice, enforcement can be inconsistent - which is why this bill aims to clarify the process.

The affected parties include importers, exporters, and owners or consignees of hazardous articles, as well as consumers who may be impacted by the destruction of these imports. As we discussed in class, stakeholders often have competing interests, and it's up to lawmakers to balance those interests - but sometimes, that balancing act can lead to unintended consequences.

The potential impact of this bill is significant, as it aims to protect public health by preventing the introduction of hazardous articles into interstate commerce. However, there may be implications for trade and commerce, particularly if the destruction orders are not implemented efficiently or effectively. Remember when we learned about the importance of checks and balances? Well, in this case, the bill's provisions aim to strike a balance between protecting public health and respecting due process - but as we've seen time and again, that balance can be difficult to maintain.

In conclusion, HR 2715 is a straightforward bill with clear objectives, but its implementation will depend on various factors, including regulatory oversight and stakeholder compliance. As I always said in class, the devil is in the details - and in this case, those details will determine whether the bill achieves its intended goals or not.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (civics_teacher personality)

The Destruction of Hazardous Imports Act, HR 2715 - a bill that seems innocuous on the surface but, my friends, trust me, it's a Trojan horse. Let's break it down.

**Main Purpose & Objectives**: The stated goal is to extend the Secretary of Health and Human Services' authority to destroy articles that pose a significant public health concern. Sounds reasonable, right? But what about the real objective? I believe this bill is designed to grant the government unprecedented power to control and manipulate the flow of goods into the country.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**: The bill amends the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, allowing the Secretary to issue orders for destruction without the opportunity for export. This means that if an article is deemed hazardous, it can be destroyed without any chance of appeal or re-exportation. But what about due process? The bill claims to provide "appropriate due process" prior to destruction, but I'm not convinced. It's a cleverly worded clause that could be used to justify all sorts of abuses.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**: Importers, exporters, and manufacturers will be directly impacted by this bill. But what about the average citizen? Think about it - if the government can destroy goods without due process, what's to stop them from targeting specific industries or companies? It's a slippery slope, my friends.

**Potential Impact & Implications**: This bill has far-reaching implications for trade, commerce, and individual freedoms. Imagine a scenario where the government uses this authority to strangle small businesses or industries that don't align with their agenda. It's not just about hazardous imports; it's about control. And what about the potential for corruption? With such broad powers, who's to say that government officials won't use this authority for personal gain?

Now, I know some of you might be thinking, "But Uncle, this is just a bill to protect public health." Ah, don't be naive! The government always hides its true intentions in plain sight. Wake up, sheeple! This bill is just the tip of the iceberg, and we need to stay vigilant to uncover the truth.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (conspiracy_uncle personality)

(With a healthy dose of sarcasm and a smirk) Oh, folks, gather 'round! We've got a real doozy of a bill on our hands here - the Destruction of Hazardous Imports Act, or HR 2715. (Winking at the camera) I mean, who wouldn't want to destroy hazardous imports? It's not like we're talking about, say, freedom-loving entrepreneurs trying to bring in innovative products from abroad. Nope, this bill is all about protecting us from those pesky "significant public health concerns" - you know, the kind that only our benevolent government can save us from.

Now, let's get down to business. The main purpose of this bill is to grant the Secretary of Health and Human Services (because who doesn't love a good bureaucracy?) the authority to destroy articles that have been refused admission into the US due to public health concerns. (In a mock-serious tone) Oh, the horror! Think of all those poor, defenseless Americans who might be exposed to... (gasp) ...hazardous imports!

Key provisions include:

* The Secretary can issue an order to destroy an article without giving the owner or consignee the opportunity to export it. Because, you know, freedom is overrated. * The owner or consignee has 90 days to destroy the article and must foot the bill for destruction costs. (Chuckles) Ah, the joys of regulatory compliance! * The Secretary must provide due process, including notice and an opportunity to appear before them, because we all know how much our government loves transparency... (rolls eyes)

Affected parties include:

* Importers and exporters who might have their goods destroyed without warning * Manufacturers who will need to comply with new regulations * And, of course, the American people, who will be "protected" from those scary hazardous imports

Now, let's talk potential impact. This bill could lead to increased regulatory burdens on businesses, which might stifle innovation and trade. (In a tongue-in-cheek tone) But hey, who needs economic growth when we can have more government control? On the other hand, it might also reduce the risk of hazardous products entering the US market. (Smirking) Because, clearly, our government is always right, and we should just trust them to make decisions for us.

In conclusion, folks, this bill is a perfect example of how our government "protects" us from ourselves. (Air quotes) "Freedom" is just a myth perpetuated by those pesky elites who want to control our every move. But don't worry, we'll be safe and sound under the watchful eye of Big Brother... er, I mean, the Secretary of Health and Human Services. (Winks at the camera) Stay vigilant, America!

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (fox_host personality)

Another masterpiece of legislative theater, courtesy of the geniuses in Congress. Let's dissect this trainwreck, shall we?

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The Destruction of Hazardous Imports Act (HR 2715) claims to aim at protecting public health by granting the Secretary of Health and Human Services the authority to destroy imported articles that pose a significant public health concern. How noble. In reality, this bill is just another symptom of the chronic disease of bureaucratic overreach and corporate influence.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to allow the Secretary to order the destruction of refused articles without giving the owner or consignee a chance to export them. Because, you know, due process is overrated. The bill also adds new provisions for "due process" (read: lip service) and prohibits the unauthorized movement of articles subject to destruction orders. Wow, I'm sure the lobbyists who wrote this bill were thrilled to include such robust protections.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects are affected: importers, exporters, manufacturers, and consumers. But let's be real, the only stakeholders who matter are the corporations that will benefit from this bill's "protections" and the bureaucrats who will get to wield more power. The rest of us are just collateral damage.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a classic case of "regulatory capture," where special interests hijack the legislative process to serve their own agendas. The real impact will be increased costs for businesses, more bureaucratic red tape, and a further erosion of civil liberties. But hey, who needs due process or property rights when we have "public health concerns" to justify our authoritarian tendencies?

In conclusion, HR 2715 is just another example of Congress's addiction to legislative placeboes – bills that pretend to solve problems but only serve to perpetuate the disease of corruption and incompetence. It's a bad case of "legislative lupus," where the body politic eats away at its own tissue, fueled by greed, ignorance, and a complete disregard for the Constitution.

Diagnosis: Terminal stupidity, with a side of corporate cronyism and bureaucratic megalomania. Prognosis: Poor. Treatment: None, as the patient is beyond salvation. Recommendation: Abort this legislative abomination before it's too late.

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

**Summary of the Destruction of Hazardous Imports Act (HR 2715)**

### 1. Main Purpose & Objectives The main purpose of HR 2715, or the Destruction of Hazardous Imports Act, is to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. This amendment aims to extend the authority of the Secretary of Health and Human Services to destroy articles that have been refused admission into the United States due to presenting a significant public health concern.

### 2. Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law The key provisions include: - **Destruction Authority**: The Secretary of Health and Human Services is granted the authority to order the destruction of refused articles that pose a significant public health risk, without allowing for export. - **Deadline and Costs**: Owners or consignees must destroy such articles within 90 days of receiving the order and are responsible for the costs associated with this destruction. - **Due Process**: The Secretary must provide due process to the owners or consignees before the destruction can occur, including notice and an opportunity to introduce testimony. - **Prohibited Acts**: It becomes a prohibited act under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to move, introduce, or deliver for introduction into interstate commerce any article subject to a destruction order.

### 3. Affected Parties & Stakeholders The affected parties include: - **Importers and Exporters**: Companies and individuals involved in importing goods into the United States. - **Public Health Officials**: Those responsible for ensuring public health safety, including the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Commissioner of Food and Drugs. - **Consumers**: Indirectly, as the bill aims to protect them from hazardous imports.

### 4. Potential Impact & Implications The potential impact includes: - **Enhanced Public Health Safety**: By allowing for the destruction of hazardous imports, the bill could significantly reduce public health risks associated with dangerous or counterfeit products. - **Increased Regulatory Burden on Importers**: Importers may face stricter regulations and higher costs associated with compliance and potential destruction of goods. - **Trade Implications**: The bill might affect international trade relationships, as it imposes stricter controls on imports, potentially leading to disputes with trading partners over the handling of refused goods.

Overall, HR 2715 aims to strengthen public health protections by giving regulatory authorities more power to deal with hazardous imports. However, its implementation could also introduce new challenges for importers and exporters, necessitating a balance between public safety and trade facilitation.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (neutral personality)

**Comprehensive Summary of HR 2715: Destruction of Hazardous Imports Act**

### Introduction

As a former D.C. lobbyist turned whistleblower, I have analyzed the congressional bill HR 2715, also known as the Destruction of Hazardous Imports Act. This legislation aims to extend the destruction authority of the Secretary of Health and Human Services to articles that present a significant public health concern.

### Main Purpose & Objectives

The primary objective of this bill is to grant the Secretary of Health and Human Services the power to order the destruction of hazardous imports without providing the owner or consignee with the opportunity for export. This authority is intended to protect public health by preventing the introduction of harmful articles into interstate commerce.

### Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law

The key provisions of HR 2715 include:

* Amending Section 801 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 381) to grant the Secretary authority to order the destruction of refused articles that present a significant public health concern. * Requiring the owner or consignee to destroy the article within 90 days of receiving the order and bear the costs of destruction. * Providing due process for the owner or consignee, including notice and an opportunity to appear before the Secretary.

These changes aim to strengthen the regulatory framework surrounding hazardous imports and ensure that public health concerns are addressed promptly.

### Affected Parties & Stakeholders

The affected parties and stakeholders include:

* Importers and exporters of goods regulated by the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act * Manufacturers of pharmaceuticals, medical devices, and other products subject to FDA regulation * Public health advocacy groups * Industry associations representing importers and exporters

These stakeholders will need to adapt to the new regulatory requirements and procedures established by HR 2715.

### Potential Impact & Implications

The potential impact and implications of this bill are significant:

* Enhanced public health protection: By granting the Secretary authority to order the destruction of hazardous imports, the bill aims to prevent the introduction of harmful articles into interstate commerce. * Increased regulatory burden: The new requirements and procedures may impose additional costs and administrative burdens on importers and exporters. * Potential for industry pushback: Affected industries may resist the changes, citing concerns about regulatory overreach or unfair treatment.

In conclusion, HR 2715 aims to strengthen public health protections by granting the Secretary of Health and Human Services authority to order the destruction of hazardous imports. While the bill's provisions and changes to existing law are significant, the potential impact and implications will depend on the implementation and enforcement of the new regulations. As a whistleblower, I will continue to monitor the developments surrounding this legislation and expose any undue influence or special interest groups that may be shaping its outcome.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (whistleblower personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Higgins, Clay [R-LA-3]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$66,200

16 donors

PACs

Organizations

Committees

Individuals

$66,200

No PAC contributions found

No organization contributions found

No committee contributions found

HAMER, GREGORY J MR. SR

2 transactions

$6,600

BOLLINGER, DONALD

2 transactions

$6,600

COOLEY, WILLIAM

2 transactions

$6,600

HAMER, GREG MR. JR.

2 transactions

$6,600

HEBERT, MARC

1 transaction

$3,500

FREY, GERARD A.

1 transaction

$3,300

CRAPPEL, ADAM

1 transaction

$3,300

UIHLEIN, RICHARD

1 transaction

$3,300

DAVIS, JORDAN

1 transaction

$3,300

ALFORD, ANTHONY

1 transaction

$3,300

CASTILLE, CARROL

1 transaction

$3,300

MIGUEZ, STEVEN

1 transaction

$3,300

MALLETT, CHESTER

1 transaction

$3,300

GRIGSBY, LANE

1 transaction

$3,300

HOLLINGSWORTH, DAVID

1 transaction

$3,300

VANHOOSE, JOHN

1 transaction

$3,300

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

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

Rep. Carter, Troy A. [D-LA-2]

ID: C001125

Top Contributors

TUNICA-BILOXI TRIBE OF LOUISIANA

OrganizationMARKSVILLE, LA

$3,400

Nov 25, 2024

TUNICA-BILOXI TRIBE OF LOUISIANA

OrganizationMARKSVILLE, LA

$3,400

Jun 20, 2023

AK-CHIN INDIAN COMMUNITY

OrganizationMARICOPA, AZ

$3,300

Mar 30, 2023

SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationSANTA YNEZ, CA

$3,300

Feb 28, 2024

TUNICA-BILOXI TRIBE OF LOUISIANA

OrganizationMARKSVILLE, LA

$3,300

Jun 20, 2023

TUNICA-BILOXI TRIBE OF LOUISIANA

OrganizationMARKSVILLE, LA

$3,300

Jun 20, 2023

AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS GENERAL FUND

OrganizationPALM SPRINGS, CA

$3,300

Jun 30, 2023

AK-CHIN INDIAN COMMUNITY

OrganizationMARICOPA, AZ

$2,500

Jul 30, 2024

THE AUGUST GROUP

OrganizationBATON ROUGE, LA

$1,000

Jul 18, 2024

CAPITELLI & WICKER

OrganizationNEW ORLEANS, LA

$1,000

Mar 26, 2024

Rep. Weber, Randy K. Sr. [R-TX-14]

ID: W000814

Top Contributors

TIGUA INDIAN RESERVATION - YSLETA DEL SUR PUEBLO

OrganizationEL PASO, TX

$2,500

Jun 30, 2023

SCOTT M. BROWN P.C.

OrganizationANGLETON, TX

$2,500

Aug 13, 2024

SCOTT M. BROWN P.C.

OrganizationANGLETON, TX

$2,500

Aug 14, 2024

ALABAMA-COUSHATTA TRIBE

OrganizationLIVINGSTON, TX

$1,000

Sep 30, 2024

ALLEN BOONE HUMPHRIES ROBINSON LLP

OrganizationHOUSTON, TX

$1,000

Jul 25, 2023

CLARK, LISA M.

IndividualHOUSTON, TX

$10,000

Feb 23, 2024

SULLIVAN, JOHN R. MR.

SULLIVAN COMPANIES • OWNER

IndividualGALVESTON, TX

$6,600

Oct 31, 2023

TEICHMAN, KEVIN MR.

TEICHMAN GROUP LLC • CEO

IndividualFRIENDSWOOD, TX

$6,600

Dec 12, 2023

MCCORVEY, MITZY

MCCORVEY INDUSTRIAL FABRICATION • OWNER

IndividualHOUSTON, TX

$6,600

Feb 9, 2023

MCCORVEY, TONY

MCCORVEY INDUSTRIAL FABRICATION • OWNER

IndividualHOUSTON, TX

$6,600

Feb 9, 2023

Rep. Nehls, Troy E. [R-TX-22]

ID: N000026

Top Contributors

ALABAMA-COUSHATTA TRIBE

COMLIVINGSTON, TX

$1,000

Sep 30, 2024

GONSOULIN, AL A

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualSUGAR LAND, TX

$6,600

Feb 26, 2024

FISHER, KENNETH

FISHER INVESTMENTS • EXECUTIVE CHAIRMAN

IndividualPLANO, TX

$6,600

May 23, 2024

FISHER, SHERRILYN

PLANO 6500 LLC • MEMBER

IndividualPLANO, TX

$6,600

May 23, 2024

MARCHELI, DANNY

CLEAR PAVE • PRESIDENT

IndividualRICHMOND, TX

$5,000

Sep 30, 2023

EMPARTIO, JOESPH

HERITAGE RANCH LLC • OWNER

IndividualRICHMOND, TX

$5,000

Sep 10, 2024

DOUDS, KENNETH

KBR BUILDERS • OWNER

IndividualSTAFFORD, TX

$5,000

Dec 3, 2024

GILL, EDWARD

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualHALLETTSVILLE, TX

$5,000

Dec 3, 2024

MARCHELI, DANIEL

CLEAR PAVE LLC • PRESIDENT

IndividualRICHMOND, TX

$5,000

Dec 3, 2024

DOUDS, ROBERT F JR.

SELF EMPLOYED • CONSTRUCTION

IndividualHOUSTON, TX

$5,000

Dec 3, 2024

Rep. Letlow, Julia [R-LA-5]

ID: L000595

Top Contributors

TUNICA-BILOXI TRIBE OF LA

PACMANSURA, LA

$2,500

May 26, 2023

TUNICA-BILOXI TRIBE OF LA

PACMANSURA, LA

$2,500

Jul 7, 2024

CHEROKEE NATION

OrganizationCATOOSA, OK

$3,300

Nov 5, 2024

EASTERN BAND OF CHEROKEE INDIANS

OrganizationCHEROKEE, NC

$3,300

Dec 26, 2024

AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS

OrganizationPALM SPRINGS, CA

$3,300

Nov 9, 2023

AK-CHIN INDIAN COMMUNITY

OrganizationMARICOPA, AZ

$3,300

Mar 29, 2023

UNITED STATES MARSHAL SERVICE

OrganizationNEW YORK, NY

$2,900

Mar 17, 2023

CHRIS STANT, LLC

OrganizationMANDEVILLE, LA

$2,800

Jan 28, 2023

FORTE AND TABLADA

OrganizationBATON ROUGE, LA

$2,500

Oct 2, 2024

ALISON BEEBE SADLER DANOS QSST TRUST

OrganizationRIDGELAND, MS

$2,500

Sep 6, 2024

Rep. Murphy, Gregory F. [R-NC-3]

ID: M001210

Top Contributors

DOISE, DARYL

OCEANS HEALTHCARE • EXEC VP

IndividualDALLAS, TX

$6,700

Apr 1, 2024

DOISE, DARYL

IndividualDALLAS, TX

$6,700

Apr 10, 2024

KAPOOR, DEEPAK

SOLARIS HEALTH • PHYSICIAN EXECUTIVE

IndividualFORT LAUDERDALE, FL

$6,600

Sep 23, 2024

KAPOOR, DEEPAK

IndividualFORT LAUDERDALE, FL

$6,600

Sep 30, 2024

SCHWARZMAN, STEPHEN

BLACKSTONE • CEO AND CHAIRMAN

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$3,300

Oct 21, 2024

ARUMUGHAM, PRADEEP

ECU • DOCTOR

IndividualKINSTON, NC

$3,300

Dec 11, 2023

BOWEN, JOEY M

PRIVATEER TOBACCO CO. INC. • TOBACCONIST

IndividualGREENVILLE, NC

$3,300

Nov 15, 2023

BOWEN, JOEY M

PRIVATEER TOBACCO CO. INC. • TOBACCONIST

IndividualGREENVILLE, NC

$3,300

Nov 15, 2023

CLARK, MELISSA A

HOMEMAKER • HOMEMAKER

IndividualGREENVILLE, NC

$3,300

Oct 6, 2023

CLARK, MELISSA A

HOMEMAKER • HOMEMAKER

IndividualGREENVILLE, NC

$3,300

Oct 6, 2023

Rep. Steube, W. Gregory [R-FL-17]

ID: S001214

Top Contributors

SCHWARZMAN, CHRISTINE

NONE • RETIRED

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$6,600

Nov 21, 2023

SCHWARZMAN, STEPHEN

BLACKSTONE • CEO AND CHAIRMAN

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$6,600

Nov 20, 2023

HOLDERNESS, MICHAEL S. JR.

SELF EMPLOYED • HOTELIER

IndividualSARASOTA, FL

$3,300

Dec 27, 2023

SCHWARZMAN, CHRISTINE

NONE • RETIRED

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$3,300

Nov 21, 2023

SCHWARZMAN, STEPHEN

BLACKSTONE • CEO AND CHAIRMAN

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$3,300

Nov 20, 2023

MCGILLICUDDY, DENNIS J.

NONE • RETIRED

IndividualSARASOTA, FL

$3,300

Mar 21, 2023

MCGILLICUDDY, GRACIELA

NONE • RETIRED

IndividualSARASOTA, FL

$3,300

Mar 21, 2023

TWOHIG, STEPHEN

SELF EMPLOYED • INVESTOR

IndividualOSPREY, FL

$3,300

Feb 13, 2023

BATMASIAN, JAMES

INVESTMENTS LIMITED • CO-OWNER

IndividualBOCA RATON, FL

$3,300

Mar 5, 2024

LIGORI, CHRISTOPHER

CHRISTOPHER LIGORI ASSOCIATES • ATTORNEY

IndividualTAMPA, FL

$3,300

Mar 31, 2024

Rep. Haridopolos, Mike [R-FL-8]

ID: H001099

Top Contributors

JARNES, LARRY

NORTHBORO BUILDERS INC • BUILDER

IndividualMELBOURNE, FL

$9,900

May 20, 2024

FARINELLA, NICK

SELF-EMPLOYED • REALTOR

IndividualMELBOURNE, FL

$3,518

May 6, 2024

HILL, KEVIN

RE/MAX ALTERNATIVE • REALTOR

IndividualINDIAN HARBOUR BEA, FL

$3,518

May 6, 2024

MOLLEN, JACK

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualMELBOURNE, FL

$3,518

May 17, 2024

SHOULDERS, KATHY

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualINDIAN HARBOUR BEA, FL

$3,518

May 21, 2024

SHOULDERS, WILLIAM

HANDEX CONSULTING REMEDIATION • EXECUTIVE

IndividualINDIAN HARBOUR BEA, FL

$3,518

Apr 30, 2024

BERRY, JAMES

DELTA AIR LINES • PILOT

IndividualMELBOURNE, FL

$3,435

Sep 10, 2024

DANDRIDGE, STEPHANIE

SOTHEBYS • REALTOR

IndividualINDIALANTIC, FL

$3,435

Sep 19, 2024

FLACHS, BRUCE

PRESCIENT NATIONAL • INSURANCE

IndividualVERO BEACH, FL

$3,435

Sep 4, 2024

MARUMOTO, ALAN K.

UNIVERSITY CENTER IMAGING • PHYSICIAN

IndividualINDIALANTIC, FL

$3,435

Sep 13, 2024

Rep. Ezell, Mike [R-MS-4]

ID: E000235

Top Contributors

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC - ALEX HINSON, PARTNER AND CHIEF EXEC. OFFICER

OrganizationBIRMINGHAM, AL

$2,500

Nov 2, 2023

ALLY TELECOM GROUP LLC - PARTNERSHIP - MITCH KALIFEH

OrganizationMETAIRIE, LA

$2,500

Aug 30, 2023

MS BAND OF CHOCTAW INDIANS

OrganizationCHOCTAW, MS

$1,000

Apr 25, 2023

GONC LTC, LLC

OrganizationJACKSON, MS

$1,000

Sep 14, 2023

STEED'S COLLISION CTR, LLC - LAURA STEED MANAGER

OrganizationBILOXI, MS

$1,000

Aug 30, 2023

WATKINS & EAGER PLLC - GRANT SELLERS, PARTNER

OrganizationJACKSON, MS

$1,000

Aug 30, 2023

TEN ONE STRATEGIES - JOHN HUGHES, MANAGING PARTNER

OrganizationJACKSON, MS

$500

Aug 25, 2023

GULF PRIDE COMPANIES, LLC - ERICH N. NICHOLS, MANAGER

OrganizationGULFPORT, MS

$250

Aug 30, 2023

WATKINS & EAGER PLLC - GRANT SELLERS, PARTNER

OrganizationJACKSON, MS

$250

Aug 25, 2023

DUNAGIN, MELINDA

DUNAGIN PEST SOLUTIONS • OFFICE MANAGER

IndividualHATTIESBURG, MS

$3,300

Nov 1, 2024

Rep. Bilirakis, Gus M. [R-FL-12]

ID: B001257

Top Contributors

COOL MASTER PRO LLC

OrganizationTAMPA, FL

$6,600

Mar 8, 2023

ARTECHE, LEON

V-ME MEDIA INC. • CFO

IndividualDORAL, FL

$5,000

Jan 18, 2024

OF FLORIDA, SEMINOLE TRIBE

EMPLOYEE RECOGNIZED TRIBE

IndividualHOLLYWOOD, FL

$3,300

Aug 2, 2024

LAGOS, JAMES H.

LAGOS LAGOS, PLL • ATTORNEY

IndividualSPRINGFIELD, OH

$3,300

Sep 9, 2024

RICE, WILLIAM LLOYD

FALFURRIAS CAPITAL PARTNERS

IndividualMINT HILL, NC

$3,300

Sep 30, 2024

WANEK, RON

ASHLEY FURNITURE INDUSTRIES, INC • CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD

IndividualTAMPA, FL

$3,300

Oct 17, 2024

WANEK, TODD

ASHLEY FURNITURE • CEO

IndividualTAMPA, FL

$3,300

Oct 17, 2024

WANEK, JOYCE

N/A • N/A

IndividualTAMPA, FL

$3,300

Oct 18, 2024

WANEK, KAREN

SUPERIOR FRESH • OWNER

IndividualTAMPA, FL

$3,300

Oct 17, 2024

HEPSCHER, WILLIAM S

RX MANAGE USA • BUSINESS OWNER

IndividualTAMPA, FL

$3,300

Oct 30, 2024

Rep. Kiggans, Jennifer A. [R-VA-2]

ID: K000399

Top Contributors

AIPAC- EARMARKS

PACWASHINGTON, DC

$2,000

Oct 22, 2024

PEAKE FOR SENATE

COMLYNCHBURG, VA

$500

Jan 9, 2024

PEAKE FOR SENATE

COMLYNCHBURG, VA

$250

Jan 9, 2024

KEHOE, MICHAEL

KINSALE MGMT INC • CEO

IndividualRICHMOND, VA

$13,200

Jun 8, 2023

MITCHUM, ELZA

C & M INDUSTRIES • PRESIDENT

IndividualCHESAPEAKE, VA

$6,600

Oct 18, 2023

SILVERMAN, JEFFREY

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualMIAMI BEACH, FL

$6,600

Oct 17, 2023

PERRY, J DOUGLAS

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualNORFOLK, VA

$6,600

Nov 6, 2023

WEEKLEY, RICHARD

SELF EMPLOYED • REAL ESTATE DEVELOPER

IndividualHOUSTON, TX

$6,600

Nov 8, 2023

GILLIAM, MARVIN

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualBRISTOL, VA

$6,600

Mar 30, 2024

BOHANNON, DAVID

LONDON BRIDGE TRADING INC. • PRESIDENT

IndividualVIRGINIA BEACH, VA

$6,600

May 23, 2024

Donor Network - Rep. Higgins, Clay [R-LA-3]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

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

Showing 32 nodes and 45 connections

Total contributions: $45

Top Donors - Rep. Higgins, Clay [R-LA-3]

Showing top 16 donors by contribution amount

16 Individuals

Industry Impact

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

−Pharmaceuticalsconfidence 0.90
Section 2(a)(2) amends the FD&C Act to replace 'drug or device' with 'drug, device, or other article' in the destruction authority, expanding HHS's power to destroy refused articles that present a significant public health concern. This could lead to increased regulatory scrutiny and potential destruction of pharmaceutical imports, imposing costs on the pharmaceutical industry.
−Medical Devicesconfidence 0.90
Same amendment as above includes 'device' in the expanded destruction authority, allowing HHS to destroy refused medical devices deemed a public health concern, which could increase compliance costs and risk of product loss for medical device manufacturers.
−Biotech & Researchconfidence 0.80
Biotech products (e.g., biologics, gene therapies) fall under the FD&C Act's definition of 'drug' or 'other article.' The expanded destruction authority could apply to biotech imports, creating regulatory risk and potential financial impact.

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 Homeland Security

Weak

Vector: 63%

Pages: 183-185AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on FDA authority to destroy hazardous imported goods, while the Project 2025 DHS section centers on immigration enforcement and border security; both involve regulating entry into the United States to protect public safety, but they address different domains (goods vs. people)."

Key themes:border securityimport regulationpublic health safetyfederal enforcement

— 151 — Department of Homeland Security l Employment authorization. Along with the legislative proposal, take regulatory action to limit the classes of aliens eligible for work authorization. Executive Orders l Pathways for border crossers 1. Direct the Department of State and the Department of Homeland Security to reinstate Asylum Cooperative Agreements with Northern Triangle Countries immediately. 2. Recommence negotiations with Mexico to fully implement the Remain in Mexico Protocols. 3. Reinstate, to the extent possible, expedited pathways with full credible fear/immigration court process (PACR and HARP). 4. Prohibit the use of Notices to Report, the use of any funds for travel into the interior of the United States, and government flights or transportation for aliens. 5. Mandate that ICE use all detention space in full compliance with Section 235 of the INA, issue weekly reports on detention capacity, and provide authority for low-level temporary capacity (for example, tents) once permanent space is full. 6. Eliminate the use of ATD for border crossers except in rare cases and only with the explicit authority of the Secretary. 7. Prohibit the use of parole except in matters that are certified by the Secretary of Homeland Security as requiring action for humanitarian or significant public benefit reasons, and prohibit the use of parole in any categorical circumstance. l Enforcement 1. Restrict prosecutorial discretion to eliminate it as a “catch-all” excuse for limiting immigration enforcement. 2. Mandate the use of E-Verify for anyone doing business with the government. — 152 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 3. Designate USCIS as Intelligence Community–adjacent, ensuring that it has access to national security and law enforcement databases. 4. Rescind all memoranda limiting enforcement of immigration laws including those identifying sensitive zones. 5. End ICE’s widespread use of termination and administrative closure of cases in immigration court. l Averting or curtailing a mass migration event 1. Provide that whenever the Secretary of Homeland Security determines that an actual or anticipated mass migration of aliens en route to or arriving off the coast of the U.S. presents urgent circumstances requiring an immediate federal response, the Secretary may make, subject to the approval of the President, rules and regulations prohibiting in whole or in part the introduction of persons from such countries or places as he or she shall designate in order to avert or curtail such mass migration and for such period of time as is deemed necessary, including through the expulsion of such aliens. Such rule and regulation making shall not be subject to the requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act. 2. Provide that notwithstanding any other provision of law, when the Secretary makes such a determination and then promulgates, subject to the approval of the President, such rules and regulations, the Secretary shall have the authority to waive all legal requirements of Title 8 that the Secretary, in his or her sole discretion, determines are necessary to avert or curtail the mass migration. Subregulatory Matters l USCIS priorities/structural changes 1. Ensure that focus is returned to vetting, base eligibility of applicants, and fraud detection. 2. Realign the Fraud Detection and National Security Directorate (FDNS) to ensure agencywide consistency on implementation of fraud detection and vetting policies. 3. Review and repeal any internal agency memo that is inconsistent with the priorities described in this chapter.

Department of Health and Human Services

Weak

Vector: 61%

Pages: 491-493AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill enhances HHS/FDA authority to destroy hazardous imports, which tangentially relates to Project 2025's focus on FDA oversight and public health safety, but it does not address the specific Project 2025 objectives concerning abortion pill regulation, vaccine importation for ethically derived alternatives, conflicts of interest, or fetal tissue research."

Key themes:FDA authoritypublic health safetyimport regulationHHS oversighthazardous imports

— 459 — Department of Health and Human Services pro-life states that are trying to protect women, girls, and unborn children from abortion. The FDA should therefore: l Reinstate earlier safety protocols for Mifeprex that were mostly eliminated in 2016 and apply these protocols to any generic version of mifepristone. A bare-minimum policy of limiting abortion pills to the pre-2016 policy of 49 days gestation, returning to the pre-2021 in-person dispensing requirement, and returning to requiring prescribers to report all serious adverse events, not just deaths, to the drug sponsor would increase women’s health and safety. l Address weaknesses in the current FAERS (FDA Adverse Events Reporting System). The Administration and policymakers should ensure that health care workers, particularly those in hospitals and emergency rooms, report abortion pill complications. Women who experience complications from abortion pills typically go to an emergency room, not to the abortion pill prescriber, so putting the onus of reporting on the prescriber who typically has no idea that a complication has occurred means that the FAERS is seriously undercounting adverse events. Submitting an adverse event to the database should be a quick and efficient process for busy health care practitioners. Currently, providers report that the process is difficult and convoluted. l Implement a policy of transparency about inspections of the abortion pill’s sponsors, Danco and GenBioPro, as well as facilities that manufacture the pills. The FDA should respond to congressional requests and Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests about inspections, compliance, and post-marketing safety in a timely manner. l Stop promoting or approving mail-order abortions in violation of long-standing federal laws that prohibit the mailing and interstate carriage of abortion drugs.16 Vaccine Importation. Thousands of Americans of faith and conscience wish to receive various childhood vaccinations for themselves and their families but are not allowed to receive vaccines that are derived through or tested on aborted fetal cells. For example, the chickenpox, Hepatitis, and MMR vaccines in the U.S. are all linked to abortion in this way. There are ethically derived alternatives abroad that have been used safely there for decades, but the FDA makes it exceedingly difficult for Americans to import them. In January 2021, the HHS Office for Civil Rights (OCR) and the FDA jointly announced that HHS was required by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act — 460 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise (RFRA)17 to allow bulk importation by doctors of certain Japanese-made vaccines to accommodate religious needs of patients, but the Biden FDA unlawfully revoked this waiver. The FDA should restore the waiver to comply with RFRA and for the obvious public health benefits of increased childhood vaccination by families seek- ing ethically derived alternatives. To avoid future moral coercion of the sort experienced with the COVID-19 vac- cines, the FDA and NIH should require the development of drugs and biologics that are free from moral taint and switch to cell lines that are not derived from aborted fetal cell lines or aborted baby body parts. Conflicts of Interest. A 2018 report in Science found that more than two-thirds of FDA reviewers later ended up at the same companies whose products they had been reviewing while they were working for the government.18 This revolving door is one mechanism by which pharmaceutical companies capture the agencies that regulate them. The FDA should impose a lengthy cooling off period for reviewers, preventing them from working for companies they regulated. In 1997, the FDA relaxed regulations to permit broadcast drug advertisements, after which Big Pharma began routine direct-to-consumer advertising, making the United States and New Zealand the only countries where such practices are legal. Following the 1997 changes, pharma became the largest advertiser for all major media organizations. This buys considerable influence in the newsroom—whether media companies acknowledge this or not—and distorts independent reporting on public health issues. The FDA or Congress should regulate where and how paid advertising is used by pharmaceutical companies more stringently, especially on media outlets. NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH (NIH) The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is the world’s largest biomedical research agency and is made up of 27 different components called Institutes and Centers. Despite its popular image as a benign science agency, NIH was respon- sible for paying for research in aborted baby body parts, human animal chimera experiments, and gain-of-function viral research that may have been responsible for COVID-19. Bioethics Reform. Research using fetal tissue obtained from elective abortions is immoral and obsolete. Research using human embryonic stem cells also involves the destruction of human life and should not be subsidized with taxpayer dollars. Good science and life-affirming, ethical research are not mutually exclusive. In fact, ethically derived sources such as discarded surgical tissue and adult stem cells (made pluripotent), not tissue obtained from elective abortions, have contributed the most successful treatments for a variety of ailments. Congress authorized HHS to choose not to fund extramural abortion-de- rived fetal tissue research that fails ethics advisory board review, and in 2019, the

Department of Agriculture

Weak

Vector: 60%

Pages: 341-343AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on granting HHS authority to destroy hazardous imports, while the Project 2025 policy concerns reforming or eliminating the USDA/HHS Dietary Guidelines. Both involve HHS and public health, but they address different regulatory areas (import safety vs. nutrition guidance), resulting only a tangential connection."

Key themes:public healthHHSfood safetyregulation

— 309 — Department of Agriculture Eliminate or Reform the Dietary Guidelines. The USDA, in collaboration with HHS, publishes the Dietary Guidelines every five years.125 For more than 40 years, the federal government has been releasing Dietary Guidelines,126 and during this time, there has been constant controversy due to questionable recommenda- tions and claims regarding the politicization of the process. In the 2015 Dietary Guidelines process, the influential Dietary Guidelines Advi- sory Committee veered off mission and attempted to persuade the USDA and HHS to adopt nutritional advice that focused not just on human health, but the health of the planet.127 Issues such as climate change and sustainability infiltrated the process. Fortunately, the 2020 process did not get diverted in this manner. How- ever, the Dietary Guidelines remain a potential tool to influence dietary choices to achieve objectives unrelated to the nutritional and dietary well-being of Americans. There is no shortage of private sector dietary advice for the public, and nutrition and dietary choices are best left to individuals to address their personal needs. This includes working with their own health professionals. As it is, there is constantly changing advice provided by the government, with insufficient qualifications on the advice, oversimplification to the point of miscommunicating important points, questionable use of science, and potential political influence. The Dietary Guidelines have a major impact because they not only can influence how private health providers offer nutritional advice, but they also inform federal programs. School meals are required to be consistent with the guidelines.128 The next Administration should: l Work with lawmakers to repeal the Dietary Guidelines. The USDA should help lead an effort to repeal the Dietary Guidelines. l Minimally, the next Administration should reform the Dietary Guidelines. The USDA, with HHS, should develop a more transparent process that properly considers the underlying science and does not overstate its findings. It should also ensure that the Dietary Guidelines focus on nutritional issues and do not veer off-mission by focusing on unrelated issues, such as the environment, that have nothing to do with nutritional advice. In fact, if environmental concerns supersede or water down recommendations for human nutritional advice, the public would be receiving misleading health information. The USDA, working with lawmakers, should codify these reforms into law. ORGANIZATIONAL ISSUES Based on the recommended reforms identified as ideal solutions, the USDA would look different in many respects. One of the biggest changes would be a USDA that is not focused on welfare, given that means-tested welfare programs would — 310 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise be moved to HHS. The Food and Nutrition Service that administers the food and nutrition programs would be eliminated. The Farm Service Agency, which administers many of the farm subsidy pro- grams, would be significantly smaller in size if the ideal farm subsidy reforms were adopted. Most important, a conservative USDA, as envisioned, would not be used as a governmental tool to transform the nation’s food system, but instead would respect the importance of efficient agricultural production and ensure that the government does not hinder farmers and ranchers from producing an abundant supply of safe and affordable food. For a conservative USDA to become a reality, and for it to stay on course with the mission as outlined, the White House must strongly support these reforms and install strong USDA leaders. These individuals almost certainly will be faced with opposition from some in the agricultural community who would fight changing subsidies in any fashion, although many of the reforms would likely be embraced by those in agriculture. There would be strong opposition from environmental groups and others who want the federal government to transform American agriculture to meet their ideo- logical objectives. Finally, there would be opposition from left-of-center groups who do not want to reform SNAP and would expand welfare and dependency—such as through universal free school meals—as opposed to reducing dependency. Reducing the scope of government and promoting individual freedom may not always be easy, but it is something that conservatives regularly should strive for. The listed reforms to the U.S. Department of Agriculture would help to accom- plish these objectives and are well worth fighting for to achieve a freer and more prosperous nation. CONCLUSION This chapter started with a discussion of the incredible success of American farmers and American agriculture in general. This is how the chapter should close as well. Americans are blessed with an agricultural sector, and a food system in general, which are worthy of incredible respect. A conservative USDA should appreciate this while recognizing that its role is to serve the interests of all Amer- icans, not special interests. By being a champion of unleashing the potential of American agriculture, a conservative USDA would help to ensure a future with an abundant supply of safe and affordable food for individuals and families in the United States and across the globe. AUTHOR’S NOTE: The author would like to thank all the contributors for their assistance, expertise, and insight into the development of this chapter. In addition, special thanks are due to Rachael Wilfong, who was instrumental in getting the chapter ready for submission.

Department of Health and Human Services

Minimal

Vector: 61%

Pages: 488-490AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on expanding HHS authority to destroy hazardous imports under the FD&C Act, which is unrelated to Project 2025's HHS priorities such as abortion data reporting, gender identity data collection, FDA regulation of generics and lab-developed tests, or abortion pill restrictions."

— 456 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise abortion providers and whether better prenatal physical, mental, and social care improves infant outcomes and decreases abortion rates, especially among those who are most vulnerable. The Ensuring Accurate and Complete Abortion Data Reporting Act of 20239 would amend title XIX of the Social Security Act and Public Health Service Act to improve the CDC’s abortion reporting mechanisms by requiring states, as a condition of federal Medicaid payments for family planning services, to report streamlined variables in a timely manner. The CDC should immediately end its collection of data on gender identity, which legitimizes the unscientific notion that men can become women (and vice versa) and encourages the phenomenon of ever-multiplying subjective identities. FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION (FDA) The FDA’s mission includes ensuring the safety and efficacy of drugs, biological products, and medical devices. Federal Laws That Shield Big Pharma from Competition. Because generics generally cost far less than brand-name drugs, consumers begin to save money as soon as a generic product comes on the market. The vast majority are very afford- able with 93 percent of generic products costing $20 or less. Savings would be even higher under proposals that prevent brand-name man- ufacturers from slowing down or impeding the entrance of generic products into the marketplace. Specifically, the FDA should prohibit pharmaceutical companies from purposely sitting on their legally available right to be the first to sell generic versions of their drugs. Additionally, Congress should create legal remedies for generic companies to obtain samples of brand-name products for their generic development efforts and should prohibit meritless “citizen petitions” submitted by manufacturers to delay approval of a generic competitor.10 Approval Process for Laboratory-Developed or Modified Medical Tests. Learning from the failed early COVID-19 testing experience, Congress and the FDA should focus on reforming laws and regulations governing medical tests, especially with respect to laboratory-developed tests. Commercial tests are developed with the intention of being widely marketed, distributed, and used, while laboratory-developed tests are created with the intention of being used solely within one laboratory. A test developed by a lab in accordance with the protocols developed by another lab (non-commercial sharing) currently constitutes a “new” laboratory-developed test because the lab in which it will be used is different from the initial developing lab. To encourage interlab- oratory collaboration and discourage duplicative test creation (and associated regulatory and logistical burdens), the FDA should introduce mechanisms through which laboratory-developed tests can easily be shared with other laboratories with- out the current regulatory burdens.11 — 457 — Department of Health and Human Services The “laboratory-developed tests” category currently encompasses a range of possible tests, many of which would be characterized more appropriately as “lab- oratory-modified tests” because they are not truly novel tests but rather modified versions of existing tests. To avoid stifling innovation and access to medical care, the applicable statutes and regulations should be revised to facilitate greater access to such modified tests.12 Finally, the FDA has long held that it has regulatory authority over such tests, while others have argued that they should be considered clinical services regulated by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). The FDA currently has regulatory authority over in vitro diagnostics, and under the Clinical Lab- oratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA),13 the CMS ensures that labs meet analytical validity standards for test methods. Congress, the FDA, and the CMS need to clarify and disentangle overlapping authorities over tests to eliminate regulatory confusion.14 Drug Shortages. The very thin profit margins and the regulatory burdens associated with generic drug manufacturing discourage inventory and capacity investments by manufacturers and contribute to drug shortages. HHS and the FDA should encourage more dependable generic drug manufacturing. The FDA should expand its current pass/fail approach to drug facility inspec- tions into a graded system that recognizes manufacturers that exceed minimum standards by investing in improving production reliability. The FDA should also add facility codes to drug packaging and construct a searchable database that cross-references product codes and facility codes. That would enable wholesalers and pharmacy benefit managers to identify and preference drugs manufactured at more reliable facilities, thus encouraging generic drug manufacturers to compete on reliability as well as on price. For its part, HHS should exempt multi-source generic drugs from requirements to pay rebates to Medicaid and other federally funded health programs, as those provisions penalize new investments in expanding manufacturing capacity when supply is unable to meet demand.15 Additionally, FDA and NIH should promote efficacy trials of new applications for generic drugs, which might include NIH fund- ing such trials or conducting its own. Abortion Pills. Abortion pills pose the single greatest threat to unborn chil- dren in a post-Roe world. The rate of chemical abortion in the U.S. has increased by more than 150 percent in the past decade; more than half of annual abortions in the U.S. are chemical rather than surgical. The abortion pill regimen is typically a two-part process. The first pill, mifepris- tone, causes the death of the unborn child by cutting off the hormone progesterone, which is required to sustain a pregnancy. The second pill, misoprostol, causes con- tractions to induce a delivery of the dead child and uterine contents, usually into a toilet at home. The abortion-pill regimen is currently approved for up to 70 days

Department of Housing and Urban Development

Minimal

Vector: 60%

Pages: 548-550AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The Destruction of Hazardous Imports Act (HR 2715) focuses on public health and import safety under the FDA, while the Project 2025 HUD section addresses housing policy, homelessness, and regulatory reforms in housing finance and development. There is no thematic or policy overlap between the two."

— 515 — Department of Housing and Urban Development 25. Process must prioritize where political leadership can implement administrative reforms through regulatory action and subregulatory guidance reforms. 26. China and other foreign nations should not be able to disrupt our nation’s housing markets, including by artificially driving up prices and reducing affordability and access to housing for Americans who are crowded out of the market by such market participation. 27. These initiatives are maintained under such designations as diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI); critical race theory (CRT); black, indigenous, Pacific Islander, and other people of color (BIPOC); and environmental, social, and governance (ESG). 28. At a minimum, these efforts duplicate what the federal government already collects and assesses; at worst, they institute arbitrary procedures in real estate appraisal practices that undermine integrity and perversely introduce arbitrary biases into what should be an unbiased system for determining financial value. 29. Revise regulatory and subregulatory guidance, where applicable within statutory authorities, that adds unnecessary delay and costs to the construction and development of new housing and has been estimated to account for about 40 percent of new housing unit costs in multifamily housing. 30. The Biden Administration has issued a proposed rule to replace the Trump Administration’s “Preserving Community and Neighborhood Choice” rule that had repealed earlier rules expanding AFFH enforcement. See U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Fair Housing, “Preserving Community and Neighborhood Choice,” Final Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 85, No. 153 (August 7, 2020), pp. 47899–47912, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2020-08-07/pdf/2020-16320.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023), and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of the Secretary, “Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing,” Proposed Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 88, No. 27 (February 9, 2023), pp. 8516–8590, https://www. govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2015-07-16/pdf/2015-17032.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023). 31. Certain pilot initiatives may encourage greater take-up of loan products designed for faster equity accumulation, including loans with shorter terms and accelerated amortization schedules. In concept, the FHA’s Home Equity Accelerator Loan (HEAL) and Good Neighbor Next Door (GNND) pilot initiatives might lead to meaningful wealth generation for first-time buyers, but they should be available to all eligible households only when they do not arbitrarily discriminate based on race or other characteristics. 32. Housing supply does remain a problem in the U.S., but constructing more units at the low end of the market will not solve the problem. Investors and developers can deliver at more efficient cost new units that will allow for greater upward mobility of rental and ownership housing stock and better target increased construction of mid-tier rental units. Further, and more fundamental to the housing supply challenge in markets across the U.S., localities can consider revising land use, zoning, and building regulations that constrict new housing development, adding time delays and costs that impede construction. Federal housing policy should get out of the way where possible and minimize the distortive impact that stimulating greater demand through loose lending can have in driving up housing prices for households that are looking for affordable entry into the housing market. 33. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of the Secretary, “Housing and Community Development Act of 1980: Verification of Eligible Status,” Proposed Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 91 (May 10, 2019), pp. 20589–20595, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-05-10/pdf/2019-09566.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023). 34. Reforms should contemplate rent payment flexibilities, allow escrow savings, and set maximum term limits that can reduce implicit penalties for increasing household incomes over eligibility terms for housing assistance and reweight waiting-list prioritization for two-parent households. 35. Some PHAs have been able to implement work requirements and term limit policies in various congressionally authorized demonstration programs, notably the Moving to Work (MTW) demonstration program established in 1996 for 39 PHAs (Congress has since authorized another 100 PHAs) in which participating MTW PHAs were given authority to implement rent reforms, work requirements and other experimental policies in rental assistance programs along with flexibilities in the use of capital and operating appropriations. 36. The FSS program has a general five-year term with a possible two-year extension, which could be applied at the term limit for overall benefits, and certain PHAs have imposed five-year to seven-year term limits. Families in these programs build escrow savings during their term eligibility that helps to facilitate successful transitions to family self-sufficiency and unassisted housing. — 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.

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. Higgins, Clay

Comment Integrity and Management Act

119/hr/9643

Restoring Integrity and Efficiency to Inspector General Oversight Act of 2026

119/hr/9725

District of Columbia Federal Immigration Compliance Act of 2025

119/hr/2056

Back to All Bills