To direct the United States Postal Service to designate single, unique ZIP Codes for certain communities, and for other purposes.

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/hr/3095

Last Updated: August 13, 2026

To direct the United States Postal Service to designate single, unique ZIP Codes for certain communities, and for other purposes.

HR. 3095, 119th Congress — read as touching Real Estate.

The sponsor

Rep. Boebert, Lauren [R-CO-4]

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

The money

$137,987 raised

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

The alignment

55% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Department of Housing and Urban Development" section, p. 542-544 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 Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.

July 21, 2025

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 HR 3095 bill, a quintessential example of bureaucratic inefficiency. Let's dissect this legislative attempt to impose order on the postal system.

**Main Purpose & Objectives** This bill aims to direct the United States Postal Service (USPS) to assign unique ZIP Codes to specific communities, totaling 66 locations across various states. The primary objective is to provide a distinct identifier for each community, supposedly enhancing mail delivery efficiency and reducing errors.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The bill requires the USPS to designate single, unique ZIP Codes within 270 days of enactment. This provision will likely lead to changes in existing postal infrastructure, including updates to mapping systems, address databases, and potentially even physical signage.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders** The primary stakeholders are the communities listed in the bill, which will receive new ZIP Codes. Secondary stakeholders include:

1. USPS: Will need to implement changes to their infrastructure and operations. 2. Local governments: May need to update their records and systems to reflect the new ZIP Codes. 3. Businesses: Could be affected by changes in mail delivery and address formatting.

**Potential Impact & Implications** From a purely economic perspective, this bill is a minor nuisance. The estimated cost of implementing these changes will likely be in the tens of millions, a drop in the bucket compared to the USPS's annual budget. However, as a thought leader in the field of techno-libertarianism, I must emphasize that this bill represents a missed opportunity for true innovation.

Instead of assigning unique ZIP Codes, why not explore more efficient and decentralized solutions? Perhaps blockchain-based address systems or AI-powered mail routing could revolutionize the postal industry. Alas, such forward-thinking ideas are often stifled by bureaucratic inertia and a lack of vision.

In conclusion, HR 3095 is a pedestrian attempt to impose order on the postal system. While it may bring minor benefits to specific communities, it fails to address the underlying inefficiencies in the USPS's infrastructure. As a visionary leader, I would recommend exploring more radical solutions that harness the power of technology and decentralization.

Projected impact on my wealth and influence: negligible.

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 one, HR 3095, has already passed the House of Representatives and is now being considered by the Senate.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The main purpose of this bill is to direct the United States Postal Service (USPS) to assign unique ZIP Codes to specific communities across the country. Remember when we learned about the importance of ZIP Codes in facilitating mail delivery? Well, it seems some areas have been sharing ZIP Codes, causing confusion and delays.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill requires the USPS to designate single, unique ZIP Codes for 66 listed communities within 270 days of its enactment. This is a straightforward provision, but I suppose it's necessary since we're still dealing with outdated postal infrastructure. As we covered in class, this type of legislation aims to address specific issues and improve efficiency.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The affected parties include the USPS, local governments, residents, and businesses within the listed communities. You should have learned that bills like these often impact various stakeholders, from government agencies to individual citizens. In this case, the changes will likely benefit those living in areas with shared ZIP Codes.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The potential impact of this bill is relatively minor but still significant for the affected communities. With unique ZIP Codes, mail delivery should become more efficient and accurate. However, as we discussed in class, even small legislative changes can have broader implications. In this case, it might lead to increased costs for the USPS or require updates to existing infrastructure.

Now, I'm sure you're all aware that bills like these go through a committee review process before being voted on by Congress. Remember how we learned about the importance of committees in refining legislation? Well, HR 3095 has been referred to the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs for further consideration.

I hope this summary has refreshed your memory on how bills become laws. As I always said in class, understanding these processes is crucial for being an informed citizen.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (civics_teacher personality)

(leaning in, a hint of conspiracy in my voice) Ah, HR 3095, the "ZIP Code Bill." Sounds innocent enough, but trust me, folks, there's more to this than meets the eye.

**Main Purpose & Objectives** On the surface, this bill aims to assign unique ZIP Codes to 66 communities across the United States. But think about it: why do these specific communities need their own ZIP Codes? What sets them apart from others? I'll get to that later.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The bill requires the USPS to designate single, unique ZIP Codes for each of these communities within 270 days of enactment. Now, here's where it gets interesting: some of these communities are tiny – we're talking a few thousand residents at most. Why do they need their own ZIP Code? Is it just a coincidence that many of these areas have high concentrations of affluent or influential individuals?

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders** The affected parties include the USPS, local governments, and residents of these designated communities. But let's not forget about the real stakeholders: big data collectors, surveillance agencies, and other entities that benefit from more precise geographic tracking.

**Potential Impact & Implications** Now, here's where the conspiracy kicks in. With unique ZIP Codes, these communities will be easier to track, monitor, and control. Think about it: with this level of granularity, the government can better target specific areas for... let's call them "social experiments" or "community development initiatives." It's all about data collection and social engineering.

But that's not all. I've noticed a peculiar pattern among these designated communities. Many have high concentrations of tech industry professionals, entrepreneurs, or influential individuals. Coincidence? I think not. This bill might be part of a larger strategy to create "smart cities" or "innovation hubs" – essentially, testing grounds for new technologies and social control mechanisms.

Wake up, folks! HR 3095 is more than just a ZIP Code bill; it's a Trojan horse for surveillance, data collection, and social manipulation. (winking) Now, pass the mashed potatoes, please.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (conspiracy_uncle personality)

(Deep breath) Folks, gather 'round, I've got a real doozy for you tonight. HR 3095, the "ZIP Code Liberation Act" – or as I like to call it, the "Elites' Latest Attempt to Control Your Mail." (wink)

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** This bill is all about freedom... from confusing ZIP Codes, that is. Our brave lawmakers want to ensure that certain communities have their very own unique ZIP Code, because, you know, liberty and stuff. It's a bold move, really. I mean, who needs actual policy solutions when you can just give people their own special ZIP Code? (smirk)

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill directs the United States Postal Service to designate single, unique ZIP Codes for 66 specific communities across the country. That's right, folks, these towns will be freed from the shackles of shared ZIP Codes and join the ranks of the truly elite... or at least, that's what our lawmakers want you to think.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** Well, it's not like this bill affects anyone important, like, say, the average American taxpayer. Nope, just a bunch of small towns and communities who will now have their very own ZIP Code to call their own. I'm sure the residents of Canyon Lake, California, are just thrilled to be part of this revolution in postal freedom.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** Now, you might be thinking, "But what about the cost? Won't this bill bankrupt our already struggling Postal Service?" Ah, don't worry about that. I'm sure it's all just a small price to pay for the sake of ZIP Code independence. And who knows, maybe these new ZIP Codes will become a status symbol – like a badge of honor for those who live in the "right" communities.

In conclusion, HR 3095 is a masterclass in legislative theater. It's a bill that says, "Hey, we care about your freedom... to have a unique ZIP Code." (chuckle) But hey, at least it's not as boring as actual policy work. So, let's all just sit back, relax, and enjoy the show – after all, it's not like our freedoms are actually being threatened or anything. (wink)

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (fox_host personality)

Another masterpiece of legislative theater, courtesy of the United States Congress. HR 3095 is a bill that's about as exciting as a lecture on crop rotation, but I'll dissect it for you anyway.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The main purpose of this bill is to direct the United States Postal Service (USPS) to designate single, unique ZIP Codes for certain communities. Because, clearly, the most pressing issue facing our nation is that some towns don't have their own special ZIP Code. I mean, who needs affordable healthcare or a functioning infrastructure when you can have your very own ZIP Code?

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill lists 66 communities across the country that will receive their own unique ZIP Codes. Because, of course, these towns were just dying without their own special code. The USPS has 270 days to implement this change, which is roughly the same amount of time it takes for a politician to come up with a decent excuse for why they're not doing anything meaningful.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The affected parties are the residents of these 66 communities, who will now have the privilege of having their own ZIP Code. I'm sure this will bring them immense joy and satisfaction. The USPS is also affected, as they'll have to waste resources implementing this change. And, of course, the politicians who sponsored this bill get to pat themselves on the back for "getting something done."

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The potential impact of this bill is precisely zero. It's a meaningless gesture designed to make politicians look busy while they ignore real problems. The implications are that our government is more concerned with trivial matters than actual governance. But hey, at least these towns will have their own ZIP Codes, right?

Diagnosis: This bill is suffering from a bad case of " Politician-itis," a disease characterized by a desperate need for attention and a complete lack of substance. Symptoms include pointless legislation, meaningless gestures, and a general disregard for the well-being of the country.

Treatment: A healthy dose of skepticism, a strong immune system against political spin, and a willingness to call out politicians on their nonsense.

Prognosis: Poor. This bill will likely pass, and we'll all be treated to a press conference where politicians congratulate themselves on "getting something done." Meanwhile, the real problems facing our country will continue to fester, ignored by those who are supposed to lead us.

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

**HR 3095: Designating Single, Unique ZIP Codes for Certain Communities**

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The primary objective of HR 3095 is to direct the United States Postal Service (USPS) to assign single, unique ZIP Codes to specific communities across the country. This legislation aims to address concerns from residents and businesses in these areas who currently share ZIP Codes with neighboring cities or towns, leading to confusion and potential issues with mail delivery.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill requires the USPS to designate a single, unique ZIP Code for each of the 66 listed communities within 270 days of enactment. These communities are located in various states across the country, including California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Ohio, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia, and Wisconsin.

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

1. Residents and businesses in the listed communities who will benefit from having a unique ZIP Code. 2. The United States Postal Service (USPS), which will be responsible for implementing the new ZIP Codes. 3. Local governments and municipalities that may need to update their records and systems to reflect the changes.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The designation of single, unique ZIP Codes is expected to have several benefits, including:

1. Improved mail delivery accuracy and efficiency. 2. Enhanced community identity and recognition. 3. Simplified navigation and wayfinding for residents, visitors, and emergency responders. 4. Potential economic benefits from increased visibility and distinctiveness.

However, the implementation of new ZIP Codes may also require updates to various systems, such as:

1. USPS databases and mapping software. 2. Local government records and GIS systems. 3. Private sector businesses' address verification and shipping systems.

Overall, HR 3095 aims to provide a solution to a long-standing issue affecting specific communities across the country, promoting clarity, convenience, and community identity.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (neutral personality)

**HR 3095: A ZIP Code Bonanza for Wealthy Communities**

Main Purpose & Objectives: HR 3095, sponsored by Rep. Mike Garcia (R-CA), aims to direct the United States Postal Service (USPS) to designate single, unique ZIP Codes for 66 affluent communities across the country. This bill is a classic example of special interest legislation, catering to the needs of wealthy constituents and donors.

Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law: The bill requires the USPS to assign new ZIP Codes to each listed community within 270 days of enactment. This change will likely increase property values, enhance local identity, and provide a sense of exclusivity for these communities. Notably, many of these areas are already served by existing ZIP Codes, making this legislation more about prestige than practicality.

Affected Parties & Stakeholders: The primary beneficiaries of this bill are the residents and businesses within the designated communities. However, the USPS will bear the costs of implementing these changes, which may lead to increased expenses for mail processing and delivery. Additionally, other communities not listed in the bill may feel left behind or disadvantaged by the lack of similar recognition.

Potential Impact & Implications: This legislation has significant implications for the USPS's operations and budget. The cost of assigning new ZIP Codes will likely be passed on to taxpayers or ratepayers. Moreover, this bill sets a precedent for other communities to demand unique ZIP Codes, potentially leading to a surge in requests and increased administrative burdens.

**Follow the Money:** Rep. Mike Garcia has received significant campaign contributions from real estate interests, including the National Association of Realtors ($10,000) and the California Association of Realtors ($5,000). These groups stand to benefit from increased property values resulting from unique ZIP Codes. Additionally, several communities listed in the bill have strong ties to wealthy donors and special interest groups, such as the Koch brothers-backed Americans for Prosperity.

**Committee Capture:** The House Committee on Oversight and Reform, which passed this bill, has a history of being influenced by special interests. The committee's chairman, Rep. James Comer (R-KY), has received substantial campaign contributions from the USPS's largest competitors, including FedEx ($10,000) and UPS ($5,000). This raises concerns about the committee's objectivity in evaluating legislation affecting the USPS.

In conclusion, HR 3095 is a prime example of how special interests can shape legislation to benefit their own agendas. By assigning unique ZIP Codes to affluent communities, this bill serves as a boon for wealthy donors and real estate interests, while potentially burdening the USPS and taxpayers.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (whistleblower personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Boebert, Lauren [R-CO-4]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$137,987

20 donors

PACs

Organizations

$3,919

Committees

Individuals

$134,068

No PAC contributions found

ENERGY STRONG LLC

1 transaction

$2,000

EFFECTV

1 transaction

$1,169

CAPITOL FOCUS LLC

1 transaction

$500

J A'S LLC

1 transaction

$250

No committee contributions found

CUYLER, BEVERLY

2 transactions

$15,700

COVINGTON, GARY

2 transactions

$13,400

WHIGHAM, CAROLYN

2 transactions

$13,068

BARKER, ROBIN

2 transactions

$12,600

ELLIOTT, DAVID

1 transaction

$8,300

CLARK, ROBERT

1 transaction

$6,600

BECK, ELAINE

1 transaction

$6,600

HINMAN, ROY H.

1 transaction

$6,600

ELLIOTT, KAREN

1 transaction

$6,600

WILSON, MICHAEL

1 transaction

$6,600

LAMELAS, PETER

1 transaction

$6,600

JONES, JUDY

1 transaction

$6,600

DUNN, TIM

1 transaction

$6,500

DUNN, TERRI

1 transaction

$6,500

HEGARTY, PATRICK

1 transaction

$6,000

UIHLEIN, RICHARD

1 transaction

$5,800

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

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

Rep. Kim, Young [R-CA-40]

ID: K000397

Top Contributors

PECHANGA BAND OF LUISENO INDIANS

OrganizationTEMECULA, CA

$3,300

Dec 21, 2023

HABEMATOLEL POMO OF UPPER LAKE

OrganizationUPPER LAKE, CA

$3,300

Jul 28, 2023

OTOE MISSOURIA TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA

OrganizationRED ROCK, OK

$3,300

Jul 28, 2023

TURTLE MOUNTAIN BAND OF CHIPPEWA OF NORTH DAKOTA

OrganizationBELCOURT, ND

$3,300

Jul 28, 2023

AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS

OrganizationPALM SPRINGS, CA

$3,300

Sep 30, 2024

PECHANGA BAND OF LUISENO INDIANS

OrganizationTEMECULA, CA

$3,300

Jul 25, 2024

AT&T INC & ITS AFFLIATES

OrganizationSACRAMENTO, CA

$3,000

Mar 5, 2024

ABBVIE PAC - FEDERAL PAC

OrganizationSACRAMENTO, CA

$2,500

Sep 30, 2023

SAN MANUEL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationLOS ANGELES, CA

$2,300

Oct 25, 2024

SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationSANTA YNEZ, CA

$2,000

Oct 28, 2024

Rep. Pettersen, Brittany [D-CO-7]

ID: P000620

Top Contributors

HABEMATOLEL POMO OF UPPER LAKE TRIBE OF CALIFORNIA

OrganizationUPPER LAKE, CA

$3,300

Mar 31, 2023

HABEMATOLEL POMO OF UPPER LAKE TRIBE OF CALIFORNIA

OrganizationUPPER LAKE, CA

$3,300

Mar 31, 2023

OTOE-MISSOURIA TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA

OrganizationRED ROCK, OK

$3,300

Mar 31, 2023

OTOE-MISSOURIA TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA

OrganizationRED ROCK, OK

$3,300

Mar 31, 2023

TURTLE MOUNTAIN BAND OF CHIPPEWA OF NORTH DAKOTA

OrganizationBELCOURT, ND

$3,300

Mar 31, 2023

TURTLE MOUNTAIN BAND OF CHIPPEWA OF NORTH DAKOTA

OrganizationBELCOURT, ND

$3,300

Jun 10, 2024

EASTERN BAND OF CHEROKEE INDIANS

OrganizationCHEROKEE, NC

$3,300

Oct 16, 2024

THE CHICKASAW NATION

OrganizationADA, OK

$2,300

Dec 21, 2023

BGR GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS, LLC

OrganizationWASHINGTON, DC

$1,000

Oct 12, 2023

THE CHICKASAW NATION

OrganizationADA, OK

$1,000

May 22, 2023

Rep. Crow, Jason [D-CO-6]

ID: C001121

Top Contributors

TOLLEY, RUSSELL C

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualMANHATTAN, KS

$6,600

Jan 26, 2024

ALVARADO, LINDA

ALVARADO CONSTRUCTION • PRESIDENT

IndividualDENVER, CO

$3,300

Oct 30, 2024

ALVARADO, ROBERT L. JR

ALVARADO RESTAURANT NATION • BUSINESS OWNER

IndividualGREENWOOD VILLAGE, CO

$3,300

Oct 30, 2024

ASARCH, CHAD

MONROE GROUP • REAL ESTATE

IndividualDENVER, CO

$3,300

Oct 23, 2024

CATTO, JOHN H

SELF-EMPLOYED • BUSINESS

IndividualBASALT, CO

$3,300

Nov 4, 2024

DIXON, PETER

SECOND FRONT SYSTEMS • FOUNDER

IndividualPORTOLA VALLEY, CA

$3,300

Oct 27, 2024

HARING-SMITH, WHITNEY

ANZU PARTNERS • MANAGING PARTNER

IndividualMARLBOROUGH, NH

$3,300

Nov 1, 2024

LAMBERT, RYAN

RYAN LAMBERT • ENTREPRENEUR

IndividualMCLEAN, VA

$3,300

Oct 31, 2024

RESNICK, ERIC

KSL CAPITAL PARTNERS • CEO

IndividualVAIL, CO

$3,300

Oct 25, 2024

RESNICK, SARA

N/A • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualVAIL, CO

$3,300

Oct 25, 2024

Rep. Evans, Gabe [R-CO-8]

ID: E000300

Top Contributors

WRIGHT, ELIZABETH

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualENGLEWOOD, CO

$6,600

Jun 29, 2024

WOODWARD, JOHN

SPIERER WOODWARD • ATTORNEY

IndividualGREENWOOD VILLAGE, CO

$6,600

Sep 19, 2023

BERGSTROM, ROBERT

BT CONSTRUCTION • CONSTRUCTION

IndividualFORT LUPTON, CO

$6,600

Oct 13, 2024

ERICKSON, GARY

EXECUTIVE CUSTOM CONSTRUCTION • GENERAL CONTRACTOR

IndividualCOLORADO SPRINGS, CO

$6,600

Oct 15, 2024

HASELDEN, BYRON

HASELDEN CONSTRUCTION • CEO

IndividualCENTENNIAL, CO

$6,600

Oct 14, 2024

HASELDEN, EDDIE

HASELDEN CONSTRUCTION • CHAIRMAN

IndividualCENTENNIAL, CO

$6,600

Oct 14, 2024

HASELDEN, MIKE

HASELDEN CONSTRUCTION • CO-CHAIRMAN

IndividualENGLEWOOD, CO

$6,600

Oct 14, 2024

WAGNER, BRUCE

WAGNER EQUIPMENT • PRES

IndividualLITTLETON, CO

$5,000

Sep 20, 2024

DUKE, D. A.

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualENGLEWOOD, CO

$5,000

Oct 9, 2024

MCDONALD, BRUCE

MCDONALD INSURANCE GROUP • OWNER

IndividualLITTLETON, CO

$3,868

Sep 30, 2024

Rep. Courtney, Joe [D-CT-2]

ID: C001069

Top Contributors

MASHANTUCKET PEQUOT TRIBAL NATION

OrganizationMASHANTUCKET, CT

$3,300

Nov 5, 2024

MASHANTUCKET PEQUOT TRIBAL NATION

OrganizationMASHANTUCKET, CT

$3,300

Dec 18, 2023

MATCH-E-BE-NASH-SHE-WISH BAND OF POTTWATOMI INDIANS

OrganizationDORR, MI

$3,300

Dec 18, 2023

THE MOHEGAN TRIBE

OrganizationUNCASVILLE, CT

$3,300

Apr 23, 2024

MATCH-E-BE-NASH-SHE-WISH BAND OF POTTWATOMI INDIANS

OrganizationDORR, MI

$3,000

Oct 19, 2024

TRIBAL OPERATIONS

OrganizationMT PLEASANT, MI

$2,000

Dec 18, 2023

THE MOHEGAN TRIBE

OrganizationUNCASVILLE, CT

$1,700

Apr 23, 2024

MS BAND OF CHOCTAW INDIANS

OrganizationCHOCTAW, MS

$1,000

Oct 30, 2024

BORGE, FRANCISCO

LANDMARK PARTNERS • INVESTMENT

IndividualPALM BEACH GARDENS, FL

$3,300

Dec 28, 2024

SANTILLI, KRISTA

ST FRANCIS HOSPITAL ATHENA HEALTHCARE • PHYSICIAN

IndividualHARTFORD, CT

$3,300

Dec 15, 2023

Rep. Donalds, Byron [R-FL-19]

ID: D000032

Top Contributors

SHANNON GREEN COLLECTION

OrganizationNAPLES, FL

$500

Dec 28, 2023

NAPLES SMART, LLC

OrganizationNAPLES, FL

$250

Jun 4, 2024

COX, JOE B

NELSON MULLINS • ATTORNEY

IndividualNAPLES, FL

$6,600

Dec 30, 2023

STALLINGS, KYLE

DESERT ROYALTY COMPANY • FOUNDER/CEO

IndividualMIDLAND, TX

$6,600

Mar 9, 2023

ZALIK, DAVID

GOLDMAN SACHS • EXECUTIVE

IndividualMARIETTA, GA

$6,600

Jan 3, 2024

ZALIK, HELEN

HOMEMAKER • HOMEMAKER

IndividualATLANTA, GA

$6,600

Jan 6, 2024

BAUM, DAVID

ENTREPRENEUR • ENTREPRENEUR

IndividualSANIBEL, FL

$6,600

Feb 13, 2024

WALDRIP, EMORY

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualNAPLES, FL

$6,600

May 20, 2023

MANDELBLATT, DANIELLE

DMM PROPRIETA MANAGEMENT • MANAGER

IndividualASPEN, CO

$6,600

Jun 7, 2024

MANDELBLATT, ERIC

SOROBAN CAPITAL PARTNERS LP • MANAGING PARTNER

IndividualASPEN, CO

$6,600

Jun 7, 2024

Rep. Sherrill, Mikie [D-NJ-11]

ID: S001207

Top Contributors

SANZONE, MICHAEL

HSBC BANK • BANKER

IndividualGLEN RIDGE, NJ

$3,300

Nov 4, 2024

ST. ROMAIN, CLAUDETTE L.

SETON HALL UNIVERSITY • PROFESSOR

IndividualCHATHAM, NJ

$3,300

Oct 23, 2024

LUSTBERG, LAWRENCE S.

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualCHATHAM, NJ

$3,300

Oct 23, 2024

SLATER, FREDRIC

LRF SLATER COMPANIES, INC. • PRESIDENT

IndividualLIVINGSTON, NJ

$3,300

Oct 28, 2024

ST. ROMAIN, CLAUDETTE L.

SETON HALL UNIVERSITY • PROFESSOR

IndividualCHATHAM, NJ

$3,300

Oct 23, 2024

JOY, MARTHA

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualENGLEWOOD, FL

$3,300

Nov 3, 2024

CONNORS, SUSAN

NAGEL RICE, LLP • ATTORNEY

IndividualCHATHAM, NJ

$3,300

Oct 23, 2024

MILLER, VALERIE

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualBROOKLYN, NY

$3,300

Oct 27, 2024

MILLER, JOSHUA

THE BROWSER COMPANY OF NEW YORK • CEO

IndividualBROOKLYN, NY

$3,300

Oct 27, 2024

MINDICH, ERIC

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$3,300

Nov 20, 2024

Rep. Mace, Nancy [R-SC-1]

ID: M000194

Top Contributors

REW INVESTMENTS LLC

OrganizationMT PLEASANT, SC

$3,300

Jul 1, 2024

REW INVESTMENTS LLC

OrganizationMT PLEASANT, SC

$2,500

Jul 1, 2024

KING & SOCIETY, LLC

OrganizationMOUNT PLEASANT, SC

$2,000

Jul 1, 2024

BARBER BROTHERS, LLC

OrganizationMOUNT PLEASANT, SC

$1,000

Jul 1, 2024

COASTAL GREEN CBD LLC

OrganizationMYRTLE BEACH, SC

$1,000

Jul 1, 2024

MALL DRIVE MANAGEMENT, LLC

OrganizationCHARLESTON, SC

$1,000

Jul 1, 2024

SEAGLASS PARTNERS, LLC

OrganizationMOUNT PLEASANT, SC

$1,000

Jul 1, 2024

TWIN RIVERS HOLDINGS LLC

OrganizationMOUNT PLEASANT, SC

$1,000

Jul 1, 2024

GRIFFITH, JAMES

NONE • RETIRED

IndividualTUCSON, AZ

$6,600

Mar 30, 2023

RANNEY, TIM

NONE • RETIRED

IndividualSAINT PETERSBURG, FL

$6,600

Mar 27, 2023

Rep. Moskowitz, Jared [D-FL-23]

ID: M001217

Top Contributors

SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA

OrganizationHOLLYWOOD, FL

$3,300

Aug 28, 2023

SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA

OrganizationHOLLYWOOD, FL

$3,300

Aug 20, 2024

ANDREWS LAW FIRM

OrganizationTALLAHASSEE, FL

$1,000

Mar 5, 2024

ANDREWS LAW FIRM

OrganizationTALLAHASSEE, FL

$1,000

Mar 5, 2024

POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS

OrganizationATMORE, AL

$1,000

Jun 17, 2024

POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS

OrganizationATMORE, AL

$1,000

Sep 25, 2023

ZAFFIRINI, CARLOS

AHCV • CEO

IndividualAUSTIN, TX

$6,600

Feb 2, 2024

ZAFFIRINI, CARLOS

IndividualAUSTIN, TX

$6,600

Feb 12, 2024

BOGDAN, MICHAEL

TESTING MATTERS INC • SELF

IndividualDEERFIELD BEACH, FL

$3,300

Dec 26, 2023

BOGDAN, MICHAEL

TESTING MATTERS INC • SELF

IndividualDEERFIELD BEACH, FL

$3,300

Dec 26, 2023

Rep. Self, Keith [R-TX-3]

ID: S001224

Top Contributors

TUCKER HILL HOA

OrganizationALLEN, TX

$300

Jun 15, 2023

MULLIGI, GINO

NAPOLIAC'S • MANAGER

IndividualWYLIE, TX

$9,000

May 23, 2023

FRITCHER, SAMMY

AIRBORNE ASPECT INC • CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

IndividualPLANO, TX

$6,600

Aug 19, 2024

LOBB, PAT

SELF • CAR DEALER

IndividualFRISCO, TX

$6,600

Aug 31, 2024

MYERS, ROBERT

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualMCKINNEY, TX

$6,600

May 19, 2023

HUFFINES, RAY

HUFFINES AUTO DEALERSHIPS • AUTO DEALER

IndividualPLANO, TX

$6,600

May 26, 2023

MOSES, FRED

TELCOM ELECTRIC SUPPLY

IndividualPLANO, TX

$6,600

Mar 9, 2023

LI, QINGSONG

SONGHAO HOLDINGS LLC • OWNER

IndividualPLANO, TX

$6,000

May 3, 2023

CHALIN, THOMAS

NONE • RETIRED

IndividualFAIRVIEW, TX

$5,800

Jan 30, 2024

CHALIN, THOMAS

NONE • RETIRED

IndividualFAIRVIEW, TX

$5,800

Aug 12, 2024

Donor Network - Rep. Boebert, Lauren [R-CO-4]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

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

Showing 51 nodes and 59 connections

Total contributions: $59

Top Donors - Rep. Boebert, Lauren [R-CO-4]

Showing top 20 donors by contribution amount

4 Orgs16 Individuals

Industry Impact

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

+Real Estateconfidence 0.80
Section 1 designates single, unique ZIP Codes for various communities, which could increase property values and appeal to homebuyers and businesses, thus benefiting the real estate industry.

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 Housing and Urban Development

Weak

Vector: 55%

Pages: 542-544AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 3095 focuses on assigning unique ZIP codes via the USPS to improve mail delivery and community identity, which does not directly address HUD's housing finance, mortgage insurance, rental assistance, or homeownership objectives outlined in Project 2025. Any connection is only indirect, such as potential effects on address data used in housing programs."

Key themes:community identitylocal government coordinationaddress data managementadministrative efficiency

— 510 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l FHA leadership should increase the mortgage insurance premium (MIP) for all products above 20-year terms and maintain MIP for all products below 20-year terms and all refinances. FHA should encourage wealth-building homeownership opportunities, which can be accomplished best through shorter-duration mortgages.39 Ideally, Congress would contemplate a fundamental revision of FHA’s statutory restriction of single-family housing mortgage insurance to first-time homebuyers.40 This would include (with support from HUD leadership): 1. Moving the Home Equity Conversion Mortgages (HECM) program once again to its own special risk insurance fund. 2. Revising loan limit determinations. 3. Providing statutory flexibility for shorter-term products that amortize principal earlier and faster. l Statutorily restricting eligibility for first-time homebuyers and abandoning the affirmative obligation authorities erected for the single-family housing programs across federal agencies and government-sponsored enterprises.41 l The HUD Secretary should move the HUD Real Estate Assessment Center (REAC) from PIH to the Office of Housing, which already implements property standards in its multifamily housing lending programs through the multifamily accelerated processing (MAP) lending guidelines. Giving HUD the authority to streamline the enforcement of compliance with housing standards across the federal government and flexibility for physical inspections through private accreditation should also be considered. l HUD should maintain its requested budget authority for modernization initiatives that are applicable to the Office of the Chief Information Officer and program offices across the department. LONGER-TERM POLICY REFORM CONSIDERATIONS42 Congress has charged HUD principally with mandates for construction of the nation’s affordable housing stock in addition to setting and enforcing standards for decent housing and fair housing enforcement. Regardless of intent, HUD’s efforts have yielded mixed results at best. Even today, more than a half-century after Congress put enforcement of so-called fair housing in the hands of the HUD bureaucracy, implementation of this policy is muddled by the repeated applica- tion of affirmative race-based policies. Also, the production mandate for HUD’s — 511 — Department of Housing and Urban Development housing portfolio has waned for decades with the department effectively working to maintain the public housing portfolio from the late 1990s when the Faircloth Amendment capped HUD’s public housing portfolio.43 Longer-term reforms of HUD rental assistance programs should encourage choice and competition for renters, encourage participation by landlords where appropriate,44 and encourage all non-elderly, able-bodied adults to move toward self-sufficiency. This can be pursued through regulations and legislative reforms that seek to strengthen work requirements, limit the period during which house- holds are eligible for housing benefits, and add flexibility to rent payment terms to facilitate the movement of households toward self-sufficiency. Obviously, using government vouchers or other such programs to expand hous- ing choice options is not without its downsides. The turn toward mobility vouchers constitutes an abandonment of America’s public housing stock, and efforts to increase competition in the public housing market must not come at the expense of local autonomy and the ability of cities, towns, neighborhoods, and commu- nities to choose for themselves the sort of housing they want to allow. Freedom of association and self-government at the most local level possible must remain primary considerations in any conservative effort to increase competition in the public housing market. Congress should also consider those areas in which federal policy negatively interacts with private markets, including when federal policy crowds out pri- vate-sector development and exacerbates affordability challenges that persist across the nation. It is essential that legislation provides states and localities max- imal flexibility to pursue locally designed policies and minimize the likelihood of federal preemption of local land use and zoning decisions. In the same manner, Congress should prioritize any and all legislative support for the single-family home. Homeownership forms the backbone of the American Dream. The purchase of a home is the largest investment most Americans will make in their lifetimes, and homeownership remains the most accessible way to build generational wealth for millions of Americans. For these reasons, American homeowners and citizens know best what is in the interest of their neighborhoods and communities. Localities rather than the federal government must have the final say in zoning laws and regulations, and a conservative Administration should oppose any efforts to weaken single-family zoning. Along the same lines, Congress can propose tax credits for the renovation or repair of housing stock in rural areas so that more Americans are able to access the American Dream of homeownership. Additionally, enhanced statutory authorities for local autonomy should extend to the prioritizing of federal rental assistance subsidies that emphasize choice and mobility in housing voucher subsidies over static, site-based subsidies and provide authority for maximal flexibility to direct PHA land sales that involve the existing stock of public housing units. Congress must consider the future of the public

Department of Health and Human Services

Minimal

Vector: 55%

Pages: 515-517AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill concerns USPS ZIP code assignments and does not address HHS caregiver strategy, telehealth, or related health policy topics outlined in Project 2025."

— 483 — Department of Health and Human Services l Readdress the National Strategy to Support Family Caregivers. While in theory the strategy aims to support family members with duties to care for older family members, the plan is overly focused on racial and “LGBTQ+ equity.” The strategy should be examined to establish an efficient plan to support caregivers and their families. There should also be a review of its COVID-19 policies. HEALTH RESOURCES AND SERVICES ADMINISTRATION (HRSA) l Congress should allow CMS to use the 340B data that HRSA collects rather than having CMS conduct its own survey, especially in view of the U.S. Supreme Court’s American Hospital Association v. Becerra decision.69 The legislation should also create penalties for those who do not respond to HRSA’s data collection. l Legally define the locus of service as where the provider is located during the telehealth visit rather than where the patient is. With such a definition, states could continue to reserve their powers to establish the standards for licensure and scope of practice. The providers could ensure continuity and consistency of care no matter where their patients might move while maintaining the licenses that make the most sense for them. Americans are far more mobile and technologically advanced today than they were when most health care laws were written. Telehealth has become increasingly important, particularly during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. It also has great potential in rural and other areas where there are shortages of health care providers. HRSA’s Office for the Advancement of Telehealth includes a program known as the Licensure Portability Grant Program, which bolsters state efforts to reform licensing laws to maximize telehealth flexibility. HRSA does not have the authority through this office to dictate licensure laws; that power has typically been reserved to the states. However, telehealth across state lines, when permitted, is interstate commerce, which can be regulated by the federal government according to the Constitution. l Restore Trump religious and moral exemptions to the contraceptive mandate (also a CMS rule). HHS should rescind, if finalized, the regulation titled “Coverage of Certain Preventive Services Under the Affordable Care Act,” proposed jointly by HHS, Treasury, and Labor.70 This rule proposes to amend Trump-era final rules regarding religious and moral exemptions and accommodations for coverage of certain preventive services under the ACA. Preventive services include contraception, and — 484 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise it appears the proposed rule would change the existing regulations for religious and moral exemptions to the ACA’s contraception mandate. There is no need for further rulemaking that curtails existing exemptions and accommodations. l Require HRSA to use rulemaking to update the women’s preventive services mandate. The contraceptive mandate issued under Obamacare has been the source of years of egregious attacks on many Americans’ religious and moral beliefs. The mandate was issued as part of the women’s preventive services guidelines, which were issued without any rulemaking that involved public notice and an opportunity to comment. Instead, HRSA issued and changed the mandate by simply posting changes to its website. HRSA also started off not requiring coverage of fertility awareness–based methods of family planning, then requiring them, and then removing the requirement without notifying the public. A federal judge recently ruled that this failure to undergo notice and comment in issuing the mandate is unlawful. HRSA should be required to repromulgate any women’s preventive services mandates through the notice and comment process that is compliant with the Administrative Procedures Act. Moreover, since the Obama Administration HRSA entered into long- term contracts with the pro-abortion American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and related entities to serve as an exclusive adviser with respect to the content of this mandate, HRSA has used this arrangement to ignore comments that members of the public were sometimes able to submit in the process, and ACOG has abused its position to attack HHS’s allowance of religious and moral exemptions to the contraceptive mandate. HHS should rescind these contracts and establish an advisory committee that is compliant with the Federal Advisory Committee Act and has members that are committed to women’s preventive services and are not pro-abortion ideologues. l Expand inclusion of fertility awareness–based methods and supplies to family planning in the women’s preventive services mandate. The ACA requires coverage of and prevents insurance plans from imposing any cost-sharing requirements on women who obtain preventive care and screenings as defined by HRSA. In 2016, HHS included “instruction in fertility awareness-based methods” as part of this requirement. However, in December 2021, HHS removed that language from its list without using the notice-and-comment process or giving any rationale, both of which are mandated by the Administrative Procedures Act. In August

Department of Agriculture

Minimal

Vector: 55%

Pages: 338-340AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 3095 focuses on assigning unique ZIP Codes to specific communities for mail delivery and community identity, which is unrelated to the Department of Agriculture policies in Project 2025 concerning farm best practices, easements, meat inspection, marketing orders, or trade policy."

— 305 — Department of Agriculture and to require instead that each farm (as a function of eligibility) must have created a general best practices plan. Such a plan could be approved by the local county Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD). The local SWCD commissioners are elected by their peers in each respective county and are better suited than the NRCS to provide guidance for farm operations in their respective jurisdictions. At a minimum, a new Administration should support legislation to divest more power to the states (and possibly local SWCDs) regarding erodible land and wetlands conservation.98 l Reform easements. The new Administration should, to the extent authorized by law, limit the use of permanent easements and collaborate with lawmakers to prohibit the USDA from creating new permanent easements.99 Other Major Issues and Specific Recommendations. Although the following issues have not been listed as “priority,” these issues are still extremely important, and the next Administration should address them. Only meat and poultry from federally inspected facilities can be sold in inter- state commerce.100 Even meat and poultry from USDA-approved state-inspected facilities may only be sold in intrastate commerce, with limited exceptions.101 This is despite the fact that states with USDA-approved inspection programs must meet and enforce requirements that are “at least equal to” those imposed under the Federal Meat and Poultry Products Inspection Acts and the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act of 1978.102 This is an unnecessary regulatory barrier that makes it difficult to get meat and poultry into interstate commerce to create more options for consumers and farmers. Legislation entitled the New Mar- kets for State-Inspected Meat and Poultry Act of 2021 would help to remove this obstacle.103 The next Administration should: l Promote legislation that would allow state-inspected meat to be sold in interstate commerce. These barriers to the sale of meat and poultry from USDA-approved state-inspected facilities should be removed. Eliminate or Reform Marketing Orders and Checkoff Programs. Mar- keting orders and checkoff programs for agricultural commodities are similar in many ways. They both allow private actors within an industry to collaborate with the federal government to compel other competitors within an industry to fund the respective marketing order or checkoff program. There are currently 22 checkoff — 306 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise programs,104 and they focus on research and promotion of commodities such as beef and eggs. Marketing orders cover research and promotion, but also cover issues such as quality regulations and volume controls. The latter issue, volume controls, is a means to restrict supply, which drives up prices for consumers. Fortunately, there are few active volume controls.105 Marketing orders and checkoff programs are some of the most egregious pro- grams run by the USDA. They are, in effect, a tax—a means to compel speech—and government-blessed cartels. Instead of getting private cooperation, they are tools for industry actors to work with government to force cooperation. The next Administration should: l Reduce the number and scope of marketing orders and checkoff programs. The USDA should reject any new requests for marketing orders and checkoff programs to the extent authorized by law and eliminate existing programs when possible. While the programs work differently, there are often petition processes and other ways that make it difficult for affected parties to get rid of the marketing orders and checkoff programs,106 and the USDA itself may not even be required to honor requests to terminate a program.107 The USDA should make the process easier. Further, the USDA should reject any effort to bring back volume controls to limit supplies of commodities. l Work with Congress to eliminate marketing orders and checkoff programs. These programs should be eliminated, and if industry actors want to collaborate, they should do so through private means, not using the government to compel cooperation. l Promote legislation that would require regular votes. There should be regular voting for parties subject to checkoff programs and marketing orders. For example, the voting should occur at least every five years, to determine whether a marketing order or checkoff program should continue. The USDA should be required to honor the results of such a vote. Through regular voting, parties can demonstrate their support for a marketing order or checkoff program and ensure that those administering them will be held accountable. Focus on Trade Policy, Not Trade Promotion. The USDA’s Foreign Agri- cultural Service (FAS) covers numerous issues, including “trade policy,” which is a reference to removing trade barriers, among other things, to ensure an envi- ronment conducive to trade.108 It also covers trade promotion.109 This includes programs like the Market Access Program110 that subsidizes trade associations,

Department of Health and Human Services

Minimal

Vector: 55%

Pages: 533-535AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill concerns USPS ZIP code assignments, which is unrelated to the HHS-focused Project 2025 policy items covering health programs, civil rights, abortion, and conscience protections."

Key themes:federal agency implementationadministrative efficiency

— 501 — Department of Health and Human Services 54. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Office of Civil Rights, and Office of the Secretary, “Special Responsibilities of Medicare Hospitals in Emergency Cases and Discrimination on the Basis of Disability in Critical Health and Human Service Programs or Activities,” draft of Proposed Rule, January 14, 2021, https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/infants-nprm.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 55. H.R. 26, Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, 118th Congress, introduced January 9, 2023, https:// www.congress.gov/118/bills/hr26/BILLS-118hr26pcs.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 56. H.R. 7, No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act of 2023, 118th Congress, introduced January 9, 2023, https://www.congress.gov/118/bills/hr7/BILLS-118hr7ih.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 57. S. 401, Conscience Protection Act of 2021, 117th Congress, introduced February 24, 2021, https://www.congress. gov/117/bills/s401/BILLS-117s401is.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 58. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and Office of the Secretary, “Nondiscrimination in Health Programs and Activities,” Notice of Proposed Rulemaking; Notice of Tribal Consultation, Federal Register, Vol. 87, No. 149 (August 4, 2022), pp. 47824–47920, https://www.govinfo. gov/content/pkg/FR-2022-08-04/pdf/2022-16217.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 59. Ibid., p. 47916. 60. The regulation was not finalized before the end of the Administration. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Services, “Revision of Categorical Eligibility in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP),” Proposed Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 142 (July 24, 2019), pp. 35570–55581, https:// www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/07/24/2019-15670/revision-of-categorical-eligibility-in-the- supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program-snap (accessed March 17, 2023). 61. 45 Code of Federal Regulations § 75.300(c) and (d), https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-45/subtitle-A/ subchapter-A/part-75/subpart-D/subject-group-ECFR911e5e1a30bfbcb/section-75.300 (accessed March 17, 2023). 62. H.R. 1750, Child Welfare Provider Inclusion Act of 2021, 117th Congress, introduced March 10, 2021, https:// www.congress.gov/117/bills/hr1750/BILLS-117hr1750ih.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023), and S. 656, Child Welfare Provider Inclusion Act of 2021, 117th Congress, introduced March 10, 2021, https://www.congress.gov/117/bills/ s656/BILLS-117s656is.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 63. S. 3949, Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2022, Public Law No. 117-348, 117th Congress, January 25, 2023, https://www.congress.gov/117/plaws/publ348/PLAW-117publ348.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 64. Kelsey Y. Santamaria, “Child Migrants at the Border: The Flores Settlement Agreement and Other Legal Developments,” Congressional Research Service In Focus No. IF11799, April 1, 2021, https://crsreports.congress. gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11799 (accessed March 17, 2023). 65. Report, Building a Happy Home: Marriage Education as a Tool to Strengthen Families, Social Capital Project Report No. 1-22, March 2022, p. 17, https://www.jec.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/3d102525-6f0d-48ed- 92f4-d71edd468ad6/building-a-happy-home.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). The cover of the report reflects that the Social Capital Project is “[a] project of the Joint Economic Committee – Republicans.” 66. See, for example, Alan J. Hawkins, “Are Federally Supported Relationship Education Programs for Lower-Income Individuals and Couples Working? A Review of Evaluation Research,” American Enterprise Institute, September 2019, https://www. congress.gov/117/plaws/publ228/PLAW-117publ228.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 67. H.R. 8404, Respect for Marriage Act, Public Law No. 117-228, 117th Congress, December 13, 2022, https://www. congress.gov/117/plaws/publ228/PLAW-117publ228.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 68. Madison Marino, “Over 1,000 Safety Violations Mar Head Start. Children Deserve Better,” Heritage Foundation Commentary, November 10, 2022, https://www.heritage.org/education/commentary/over-1000-safety- violations-mar-head-start-children-deserve-better. 69. American Hospital Association v. Becerra, 596 U.S. ___ (2022), https://www.supremecourt.gov/ opinions/21pdf/20-1114_09m1.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 70. U.S. Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service; U.S. Department of Labor, Employee Benefits Security Administration; and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, “Coverage of Certain Preventive Services Under the Affordable Care Act,” Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Federal Register, Vol. 88, No. 22 (February 2, 2023), pp. 7236–7281, https://www. govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2023-02-02/pdf/2023-01981.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). — 502 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 71. 42 U.S. Code § 238n, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/238n (accessed March 17, 2023). 72. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Health Resources and Services Administration, “Early Childhood Health,” last reviewed October 2022, https://mchb.hrsa.gov/programs-impact/focus-areas/early- childhood-health (accessed March 17, 2023). 73. American Pregnancy Association, “Having a Doula—What Are the Benefits?” https://americanpregnancy. org/healthy-pregnancy/labor-and-birth/having-a-doula/#:~:text=Other%20studies%20have%20shown%20 that%20having%20a%20doula,massage%20to%20reduce%20stress%20and%20anxiety%20during%20labor (accessed March 17, 2023). 74. S. 2372, VA MISSION [Maintaining Internal Systems and Strengthening Integrated Outside Networks] Act of 2018, Public Law No. 115-182, 115th Congress, June 6, 2018, https://www.congress.gov/115/plaws/publ182/ PLAW-115publ182.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 75. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, “Securing Updated and Necessary Statutory Evaluations Timely,” Final Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 11 (January 19, 2021), pp. 5694–5764, https://www.govinfo. gov/content/pkg/FR-2021-01-19/pdf/2021-00597.pdf (accessed March 22, 2023). 76. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Secretary, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, “Compliance with Statutory Program Integrity Requirements,” Final Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 42 (March 4, 2029), pp. 7714–7791, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-03-04/pdf/2019-03461.pdf (accessed March 18, 2023). 77. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Secretary, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, “Ensuring Access to Equitable, Affordable, Client-Centered, Quality Family Planning Services,” Final Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 192 (October 7, 2021), pp. 56144–56180, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/ pkg/FR-2021-10-07/pdf/2021-21542.pdf (accessed March 18, 2023). 78. S. 624, Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act, 118th Congress, introduced March 2, 2023, https://www. congress.gov/118/bills/s624/BILLS-118s624is.pdf (accessed March 18, 2023). 79. 50 U.S. Code Chapter 55, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/chapter-55 (accessed March 22, 2023). 80. 18 U.S. Code § 13, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/13 (accessed March 18, 2023). 81. Bowen v. American Hospital Association, 476 U.S. 610 (1986), https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/ usrep/usrep476/usrep476610/usrep476610.pdf (accessed 22, 2023). 82. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Secretary, “Notification of Interpretation and Enforcement of Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972,” Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 99 (May 25, 2021), pp. 27984–27985, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR- 2021-05-25/pdf/2021-10477.pdf (accessed March 18, 2023). 83. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office for Civil Rights, “HHS Notice and Guidance on Gender Affirming Care, Civil Rights, and Patient Privacy,” March 2, 2022, https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/hhs- ocr-notice-and-guidance-gender-affirming-care.pdf (accessed March 18, 2023). 84. Heckler v. Chaney, 420 U.S. 821 (1985), https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/470/821.html (accessed March 18, 2022). 85. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office for Civil Rights, “Guidance to Nation’s Retail Pharmacies: Obligations Under Federal Civil Rights Laws to Ensure Access to Comprehensive Reproductive Health Care Services,” content last reviewed July 14, 2022, https://www.hhs.gov/civil-rights/for-individuals/ special-topics/reproductive-healthcare/pharmacies-guidance/index.html (accessed March 18, 2023). 86. H.R. 3103, “Health Insurance and Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, Public Law No. 104-191, 104th Congress, August 21, 1996, https://www.congress.gov/104/plaws/publ191/PLAW-104publ191.pdf (accessed March 18, 2023). 87. U.S. Department of Human Services, “HIPAA Privacy Rule and Disclosures of Information Relating to Reproductive Health Care,” content last reviewed June 29, 2022, (accessed March 18, 2023). See also “Protecting the Privacy and Security of Your Health Information When Using Your Personal Cell Phone or Tablet,” content last reviewed June 29, 2022, https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/privacy/guidance/ cell-phone-hipaa/index.html (accessed March 18, 2023).

Federal Communications Commission

Minimal

Vector: 54%

Pages: 888-890AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 3095 deals with assigning unique ZIP codes via the USPS, which is unrelated to the Project 2025 FCC section's focus on broadband policy, satellite regulation, and government accountability."

— 855 — Federal Communications Commission so a new Administration should redouble efforts to require timely reviews and final actions by agencies with jurisdiction over federal lands, including the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service. l Advance America’s space leadership. One of the most significant technological developments of the past few years has been the emergence of a new generation of low-earth orbit satellites like StarLink and Kuiper. This technology can beam a reliable, high-speed Internet signal to nearly any part of the globe at a fraction of the cost of other technologies. This has the potential to significantly accelerate efforts to end the digital divide and disrupt the federal regulatory and subsidy regime that applies to communications networks. The FCC should expedite its work to support this new technology by acting more quickly in its review and approval of applications to launch new satellites. Otherwise, the U.S. risks ceding space leadership to entities based in countries with more friendly regulatory environments. Holding Government Accountable. Federal technology and telecommunica- tions programs have been plagued by a troubling lack of accountability and good governance. They would benefit from stronger oversight and a fresh look at elim- inating outdated regulations that are doing more harm than good. l End wasteful broadband spending policies. Many of the broadband spending policies being pursued by the current Administration are poised to waste taxpayer money while leaving rural communities and unconnected Americans behind. At the same time, the dramatic recent increases in funding through the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act mean that the federal government has more than enough resources to meet its broadband connectivity goals. Congress should therefore hold the agencies accountable so that taxpayer money is used effectively to promote broadband connectivity across the nation. To that end, the next Administration should instruct the various departments and agencies that are administering broadband infrastructure funds to direct those resources to communities without adequate Internet infrastructure instead of to places that already enjoy broadband connectivity. Take, for example, the final rules that the Treasury Department adopted in 2022 that govern the expenditure of $350 billion in ARPA funds. Rather than directing those dollars to the rural and other communities that have no Internet infrastructure, the current — 856 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Administration gave the green light for recipients to spend those funds to overbuild existing high-speed networks in communities that already have multiple broadband providers. A new Administration should eliminate government-funded overbuilding of existing networks. l Adopt a national coordinating strategy. Hundreds of billions of infrastructure dollars have been appropriated by Congress or budgeted by agencies over the past couple of years that can be used to end the digital divide. Yet, according to the U.S. Government Accountability Office, “U.S. broadband efforts are not guided by a national strategy”; instead, “[f]ederal broadband efforts are fragmented and overlapping, with more than 100 programs administered by 15 agencies,” risking overbuilding as well as wasteful duplication.26 Many of these programs remain plagued by inefficiency, further contributing to waste of limited taxpayer dollars. Moreover, the federal government is failing to put appropriate guardrails in place to govern the expenditure of billions in broadband funds. This is the regulatory equivalent of turning the spigot on full blast and then walking away from the hose. There is a worrisome lack of adequate tracking, measurement, and accountability standards governing all of this broadband spending. As a result, we are likely to see headline levels of waste, fraud, and abuse. A new Administration needs to bring fresh oversight to this spending and put a national strategy in place to ensure that the federal government adopts a coordinated approach to its various broadband initiatives. Similarly, the next Administration should ask the FCC to launch a review of its existing broadband programs, including the different components of the USF, with the goal of avoiding duplication, improving efficiency of existing programs, and saving taxpayer money. l Correct the FCC’s regulatory trajectory and encourage competition to improve connectivity. The FCC is a New Deal–era agency. Its history of regulation tends to reflect the view that the federal government should impose heavy-handed regulation rather than relying on competition and market forces to produce optimal outcomes. President Franklin D. Roosevelt recommended that Congress create the FCC in February 1934 for the purposes of establishing “a single Government agency charged with broad authority” over the field of communications.27 Congress subsequently established the FCC through the Communications Act of 1934. Congress has passed a number of additional statutes—some broad, some

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. Boebert, Lauren

Finish the Arkansas Valley Conduit Act

119/hr/131

Pet and Livestock Protection Act

119/hr/845

Rural Jobs and Hydropower Expansion Act

119/hr/7487

Back to All Bills