Gateway Partnership Act

Download PDF
Bill ID: 119/hr/5254
Last Updated: September 7, 2026

Sponsored by

Rep. Bell, Wesley [D-MO-1]

ID: B001324

Follow the money

The bill

Gateway Partnership Act

HR. 5254, 119th Congress — read as touching Real Estate.

The sponsor

Rep. Bell, Wesley [D-MO-1]

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

The money

$68,750 raised

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

The alignment

55% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Environmental Protection Agency" section, p. 458-460 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Ordered to be reported without amendment favorably.

July 28, 2026

Introduced

Committee Review

Floor Action

📍 Current Status

Next: The full House will vote on whether to pass the bill.

✅

Passed House

🏛️

Senate Review

🎉

Passed Congress

🖊️

Presidential Action

⚖️

Became Law

📚 How does a bill become a law?

1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.

2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.

3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.

4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.

5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.

6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.

7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!

Bill Summary

Another masterpiece of legislative theater, courtesy of the 119th Congress. Let's dissect this farce and expose the real disease beneath.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The Gateway Partnership Act (HR 5254) pretends to authorize a partnership between the Secretary of the Interior and the Gateway Arch Park Foundation to host private events in Gateway Arch National Park buildings. But don't be fooled – this is just a Trojan horse for corporate interests to exploit public resources.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill allows the Secretary to enter into a 5-year agreement with the Foundation, permitting private events in Park buildings, including the Arch Visitor Center and Old Courthouse. The agreement will include terms and conditions to "protect" the Park's resources (read: ensure the Foundation's profits). Notably, the bill:

* Allows for exclusive use of Park buildings by the Foundation during specified dates and times * Sets a maximum number of events per month (because who needs public access, anyway?) * Requires liability insurance that lists the United States as additionally insured (just in case something goes wrong) * Protects the Federal Government from liability claims (because accountability is overrated)

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The real beneficiaries of this bill are:

* The Gateway Arch Park Foundation (a nonprofit with a suspiciously close relationship to corporate interests) * Private event organizers and corporations looking to exploit public resources for profit * Politicians who will receive campaign donations and kickbacks from these events

Meanwhile, the public is left with:

* Reduced access to Park buildings during private events * Increased costs for maintenance and upkeep due to wear and tear from these events * A further erosion of public trust in government institutions

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill will lead to a slippery slope of privatization and exploitation of national parks. It sets a precedent for corporate interests to dictate the use of public resources, undermining the very purpose of our national park system.

The "sunset" clause (Section 3(f)) is a farce – it's just a way to create a temporary illusion of accountability while ensuring that this bill becomes a permanent fixture in our legislative landscape.

In conclusion, HR 5254 is a symptom of a deeper disease: the corruption and greed that infects our government. It's a cynical attempt to line the pockets of corporate interests at the expense of public resources and trust. As I always say, "Everyone lies" – and this bill is no exception.

Related Topics

Public Lands & Natural Resources
Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Bell, Wesley [D-MO-1]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions
$68,750
18 donors
PACs
$13,950
Organizations
$2,000
Committees
$0
Individuals
$52,800
1
DEMOCRACY ENGINE INC PAC
11 transactions
$12,600
2
SUN POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE
1 transaction
$1,000
3
ACTBLUE
2 transactions
$350
1
BLUE ARROW MISSOURI LLC
1 transaction
$1,000
2
NEWTON BARTH LLP
1 transaction
$500
3
ICON DESIGN LLC
1 transaction
$500

No committee contributions found

1
WINN, DAVID
2 transactions
$13,200
2
PFAUTCH, ROY
1 transaction
$6,600
3
SALMON, LESLIE
1 transaction
$3,300
4
FEIRSTEIN, BARRY
1 transaction
$3,300
5
WERNER, LINDA
1 transaction
$3,300
6
RETTNER, MATTHEW
1 transaction
$3,300
7
WULIGER, SANDRA
1 transaction
$3,300
8
MENDELSOHN, GARY
1 transaction
$3,300
9
KIRK, CLAY KENAN
1 transaction
$3,300
10
DACHS, HARVEY
1 transaction
$3,300
11
FARB, DAN
1 transaction
$3,300
12
GOLUB, BEN
1 transaction
$3,300

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 2 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Rep. Wagner, Ann [R-MO-2]

ID: W000812

Top Contributors

24

1
OTOE MISSOURIA TRIBE
OrganizationRED ROCK, OK
$3,300
Aug 23, 2023
2
DEMOCRACY ENGINE, INC., PAC
OrganizationWASHINGTON, DC
$2,000
Jul 14, 2023
3
DEMOCRACY ENGINE, INC., PAC
OrganizationWASHINGTON, DC
$500
Mar 15, 2023
4
WINRED
OrganizationARLINGTON, VA
$9
May 9, 2024
5
WILHELM, MARK A MR.
SAFETY NATIONAL CASUALTY CORP. • CHAIRMAN & CEO
IndividualSAINT LOUIS, MO
$13,200
Dec 18, 2023
6
DRURY, TIM M.
DRURY DEVELOPMENT • PRESIDENT
IndividualSAINT LOUIS, MO
$13,200
Feb 27, 2023
7
DANFORTH, JOHN C
DOWD BENNETT LLP • ATTORNEY
IndividualSAINT LOUIS, MO
$13,200
Feb 17, 2023
8
TRACY, RICHARD L. MR.
DOT FOODS, INC. • PRESIDENT
IndividualDES PERES, MO
$13,200
Feb 17, 2023
9
RINEY, RODGER O. MR.
T.D. AMERITRADE • ADVISOR TO CEO
IndividualSAINT LOUIS, MO
$13,200
Mar 23, 2023
10
O'CONNELL, JOHN T.
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualSAINT LOUIS, MO
$13,200
Mar 15, 2023

Rep. Budzinski, Nikki [D-IL-13]

ID: B001315

Top Contributors

26

1
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN
$1,650
Jun 13, 2023
2
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN
$1,650
Apr 30, 2024
3
LABORERS LOCAL 397 PAC
OrganizationEDWARDSVILLE, IL
$500
Jul 22, 2024
4
PLUMBERS & PIPEFITTERS LOCAL 553
OrganizationEAST ALTON, IL
$500
Jul 26, 2024
5
LABORERS LOCAL 397 PAC
OrganizationEDWARDSVILLE, IL
$500
Oct 8, 2024
6
PLUMBERS & PIPEFITTERS LOCAL 553
OrganizationEAST ALTON, IL
$500
Oct 8, 2024
7
FISHER, CYNTHIA
PATIENTRIGHTSADVOCATE.ORG • CHAIRMAN
IndividualPALM BEACH, FL
$3,300
Oct 22, 2024
8
MURPHY, JAMES
INVENERGY LLC • PRESIDENT
IndividualBARRINGTON, IL
$3,300
Oct 20, 2024
9
NELSON, REED C.
NELSON AND NELSON • ATTORNEY
IndividualCOLLINSVILLE, IL
$3,300
Oct 9, 2024
10
NI, PIN
WANXIANG AMERICA CORPORATION • PRESIDENT
IndividualSOUTH BARRINGTON, IL
$3,300
Oct 21, 2024

Donor Network - Rep. Bell, Wesley [D-MO-1]

PACs
Organizations
Individuals
Politicians

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

Loading...

Showing 31 nodes and 63 connections

Total contributions: $63

Top Donors - Rep. Bell, Wesley [D-MO-1]

Showing top 18 donors by contribution amount

3 PACs3 Orgs12 Individuals

Industry Impact

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

  • +Real Estateconfidence 0.80

    Section 3 allows for private events to be hosted in Gateway Arch National Park buildings, which could increase demand for event spaces and related services, potentially benefiting the real estate industry, specifically companies involved in managing or developing event venues.

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.

Environmental Protection Agency

Weak
Vector: 57%
Pages: 458-460AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on National Park Service partnerships and private event management, while the Project 2025 EPA section concerns air quality regulation, greenhouse gas reporting, and limiting EPA authority. Both involve federal agency efficiency and public‑private collaboration, but their substantive policy areas are unrelated."

Key themes:public-private partnershipsagency efficiencyresource managementfederal oversight

— 425 — Environmental Protection Agency are statutorily required, and remove any regulatory differences between attainment and maintenance that are not explicitly required by law. l Streamline the process for state and local governments to demonstrate that their federally funded highway projects will not interfere with NAAQS attainment. l Adopt policies to prevent abuse of EPA’s CAA “error correction” authority.20 EPA historically has used this to coerce states into adopting its favored policies on pain of imposition of a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP). l Limit EPA’s reliance on CAA § 30121 general rulemaking authority to ensure that it is not abused to issue regulations for which EPA lacks substantive authority elsewhere in the statute. l If possible, return the standard-setting role to Congress. Climate Change l Remove the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP) for any source category that is not currently being regulated. The overall reporting program imposes significant burdens on small businesses and companies that are not being regulated. This is either a pointless burden or a sword-of- Damocles threat of future regulation, neither of which is appropriate. l Establish a system, with an appropriate deadline, to update the 2009 endangerment finding. l Establish a significant emissions rate (SER) for greenhouse gasses (GHGs). Regulating Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) Under the American Innovation and Manufacturing (AIM) Act22 l Repeal Biden Administration implementing regulations for the AIM Act that are unnecessarily stringent and costly. l Refrain from granting petitions from opportunistic manufacturers to add new restrictions that further skew the market toward costlier refrigerants and equipment. — 426 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l Conduct realistic cost assessments that reflect actual consumer experiences instead of the current unrealistic ones claiming that the program is virtually cost-free. Mobile Source Regulation by the Office of Transportation and Air Quality l Establish GHG car standards under Department of Transportation (DOT) leadership that properly consider cost, choice, safety, and national security. l Review the existing “ramp rate” for car standards to ensure that it is actually achievable. l Include life cycle emissions of electric vehicles and consider all of their environmental impacts. l Restore the position that California’s waiver applies only to California- specific issues like ground-level ozone, not global climate issues. l Ensure that other states can adopt California’s standards only for traditional/criteria pollutants, not greenhouse gases. l Stop the use of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) to increase standards on airplanes. l Reconsider the Cleaner Trucks Initiative to balance the goal of driving down emissions without creating significant costs or complex burdens on the industry. Air Permitting Reforms for New Source Review (Pre-Construction Per- mits) and Title V (Operating Permits) l Develop reforms to ensure that when a facility improves efficiency within its production process, new permitting requirements are not triggered. l Restore the Trump EPA position on Once-In, Always-In (that major sources can convert to area sources when affiliated emissions standards are met). l Revisit permitting and enforcement assumptions that sources will operate 24 hours a day, 365 days a year; this artificially inflates a source’s potential to emit (PTE), which can result in more stringent permit terms.

Department of Housing and Urban Development

Minimal
Vector: 57%
Pages: 548-550AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill concerns private event partnerships at a national park under the Department of the Interior, which is unrelated to HUD's homelessness and Housing First policies outlined in Project 2025."

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

Department of Housing and Urban Development

Minimal
Vector: 56%
Pages: 545-547AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The Gateway Partnership Act focuses on authorizing private events in a national park through a partnership with a non-profit foundation, which is unrelated to the Project 2025 HUD policy objectives concerning financial management reform, program devolution, or housing market dynamism. There is no thematic or policy overlap between the bill and the specified HUD section."

— 512 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise housing model. At best, any new public investments will provide maintenance funds to bring substandard housing units and properties up to livability standards but will still fail to address larger aims of upward mobility and dynamism for local housing markets where land can be sold by PHAs and put to greater economic use, thereby benefiting entire local economies through greater private investment, productivity and employment opportunities, and increased tax revenue. Any long-term view of HUD’s future must include maintaining the strong financial operations and reliable reporting that are needed to run a $50 billion- per-year agency. Before the Trump Administration, HUD effectively did not have a Chief Financial Officer (CFO) for eight years, and HUD’s financial infrastructure inevitably deteriorated. The department’s auditors were unable to conclude that HUD’s internal operations were producing accurate financial reporting. The audi- tors had identified multiple material weaknesses and significant deficiencies in the department’s internal financial controls. Overall, the deterioration of HUD’s financial infrastructure led to a lack of accountability with respect to the use of taxpayer funds as well as to pervasive difficulties with operations and program implementation. However, by hiring a new CFO from the private sector with a proven track record of visionary leadership, HUD was able to implement an agencywide governance structure that improved its financial processes and internal controls and harnessed the power of innovative new technologies to bring a modernized business mindset to the agency’s financial infrastructure. By the end of the Trump Administration, for the first time in nearly a decade, HUD was able to address all of its previously identified material weaknesses, and the auditors were able to issue their first clean audit report on HUD’s financial statements and internal controls. Finally, and more fundamentally, Congress could consider a wholesale overhaul of HUD that contemplates devolving many HUD functions to states and localities with any remaining federal functions consolidated to other federal agencies (for example, by transferring loan guarantee programs to SBA; moving Indian housing programs to the Department of the Interior; moving rental assistance, mortgage insurance programs, and GNMA to a redesignated Housing and Home Finance Agency). Generally, this reform path could consolidate some programs, elimi- nate others that have failed to produce meaningful long-run results, and narrow the scope of many programs so that they are closer to what they were when they were created. — 513 — Department of Housing and Urban Development ENDNOTES 1. At a 1998 Senate hearing, then-HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo acknowledged that the department “faced a competence gap” and had “the dubious distinction of being the only federal agency designated as ‘high risk’ by the General Accounting [now Government Accountability] Office (GAO),” even referencing the Section 8 rental subsidy as “on the brink of becoming the next savings and loan scandal,” and explained how the department was stepping up enforcement efforts “focused on closing the competence gap by eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse.” See “Testimony of Secretary Andrew Cuomo before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies,” March 25, 1998, https://archives.hud.gov/ testimony/1998/tst32598.cfm (accessed March 4, 2023). 2. H.R. 7984, Housing and Urban Development Act of 1965, Public Law No. 89-117, 89th Congress, August 10, 1965, https://www.congress.gov/89/statute/STATUTE-79/STATUTE-79-Pg451.pdf (accessed March 4, 2023). 3. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2023 Budget in Brief, pp. 2 and 7, https://www.hud.gov/ sites/dfiles/CFO/documents/2023_BudgetInBriefFINAL.pdf (accessed March 4, 2023). 4. For example, the Special Applications Center (SAC) located in Chicago, Illinois, was established in 1998 as a division of the Office of Public and Indian Housing to accept, review, and approve all nonfunded, noncompetitive applications and plans for demolition, disposition, and conversion of land subject to an annual contributions contract (ACC) in public housing. 5. The Secretary has delegated full authority for the Administration and enforcement of the Fair Housing Act to the Assistant Secretary of the Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity but also has delegated limited assignment and decision-making authority to the General Counsel. 6. Effectively the HUD Chief Operating Officer and appointed by the President with Senate advice and consent. 7. The Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) is an independent adjudicatory office within the Office of the Secretary. Led by a Director who is appointed by the Secretary, it supervises the Administrative Judges of the Office of Appeals, the administrative law judges of the Office of Administrative Law Judges, and the OHA support staff. The HUD Secretary appoints administrative judges and administrative law judges in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. Chapter 5, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/part-I/ chapter-5 (accessed March 4, 2023). 8. HUD currently has a Departmental Equity Assessment Working Group, supported with five FTEs funded by the OSDBU, “as part of the President’s Executive Order 13985, Executive Order On Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government.” See U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2023 Congressional Justifications, p. 35-15, https://www.hud.gov/sites/ dfiles/CFO/documents/2023HUDCongressionalJustificationsFINALelectronicversion.pdf (accessed March 4, 2023), and President Joseph R. Biden Jr., Executive Order 13985, “Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government,” January 20, 2021, in Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 14 (January 25, 2021), pp. 7009–7013, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2021-01-25/pdf/2021- 01753.pdf (accessed March 4, 2023). 9. Interestingly, “[t]he 2023 President’s Budget requests $748 thousand for CFBNP, which is $436 thousand less than the 2022 Annualized CR level. The Budget reflects total funding (carryover and new authority) of $1.2 million, $448 thousand less than 2022 total funding.” U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2023 Congressional Justifications, p. 35-16. 10. See H.R. 558, Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act, Public Law No. 100-77, 100th Congress, July 22, 1987, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-101/pdf/STATUTE-101-Pg482.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023). Later renamed the McKinney–Vento Homeless Assistance Act. 11. Established under the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, 42 U.S.C. §§ 5301 et seq., https:// www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42 (accessed March 4, 2023). 12. S. 566, Cranston–Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act, Public Law No. 101-625, 101st Congress, November 28, 1990, Title II, https://www.congress.gov/101/statute/STATUTE-104/STATUTE-104-Pg4079.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023). 13. S. 1, Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Public Law No. 91-646, 91st Congress, January 2, 1971, https://www.congress.gov/91/statute/STATUTE-84/STATUTE-84-Pg1894.pdf (accessed March 4, 2023). “The URA establishes the minimum Federal requirements for the acquisition of real property for Federally-funded programs and projects, and for the relocation of persons who must move from

Showing 3 of 5 policy matches

About These Correlations

Policy matches are calculated using a hybrid approach: initial candidates are found using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text, then an AI model (Llama 3.1 70B) provides detailed alignment ratings and analysis. Ratings range from 1 (minimal alignment) to 5 (very strong alignment). This analysis does not imply direct causation or intent.

Full Policy Text

Related Bills