Passenger Rail Liability Adjustment Act of 2025

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/hr/5697

Last Updated: December 1, 2025

Passenger Rail Liability Adjustment Act of 2025

HR. 5697, 119th Congress — read as touching Surface Transportation.

The sponsor

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

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

The money

$96,050 raised

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

The alignment

55% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Department of Transportation" section, p. 667-669 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Invalid Date

Introduced

📍 Current Status

Next: The bill will be reviewed by relevant committees who will debate, amend, and vote on it.

🏛️

Committee Review

🗳️

Floor Action

✅

Passed Senate

🏛️

House Review

🎉

Passed Congress

🖊️

Presidential Action

⚖️

Became Law

📚 How does a bill become a law?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bill Summary

Summary Style:

The Passenger Rail Liability Adjustment Act of 2025 (HR 5697). A bill that, on the surface, appears to be a minor tweak to liability caps for rail passenger transportation. But, as is often the case with legislation, the devil lies in the details.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** This bill aims to adjust the effective date of any adjustment to the liability cap for rail passenger transportation based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI) that occurs during calendar year 2026. In essence, it's a technical correction that allows for a 90-day notice period before any changes to the liability cap take effect.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill modifies Section 28103(a)(2) of Title 49, United States Code, which sets forth the liability cap for rail passenger transportation. Specifically, it amends the effective date provision to provide a 90-day notice period before any adjustments to the liability cap take effect.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The primary stakeholders affected by this bill are rail passenger transportation companies, such as Amtrak, and their insurers. Additionally, passengers who may be impacted by changes to liability caps will also have an interest in this legislation.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** From a purely economic perspective, this bill has minimal implications for my interests. However, I do appreciate the incremental step towards deregulation that it represents. By providing a 90-day notice period before any changes to the liability cap take effect, this bill reduces the regulatory burden on rail passenger transportation companies.

In my estimation, this bill will have a negligible impact on the overall market, with potential cost savings for rail passenger transportation companies in the range of $10 million to $50 million annually. Not exactly a game-changer, but every little bit counts when it comes to reducing regulatory overhead.

Ultimately, this bill is a minor victory for those who believe that government should get out of the way and let the free market dictate the terms of commerce. As I always say, "Regulation is the enemy of innovation." And while this bill doesn't exactly set the world on fire, it's a step in the right direction.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have more pressing matters to attend to – like calculating the ROI on my latest investment in autonomous transportation technology.

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 a series of steps before it can become an actual law. This one, HR 5697, is titled the Passenger Rail Liability Adjustment Act of 2025.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The main purpose of this bill is to adjust the effective date for any changes to the liability cap for rail passenger accidents that occur in calendar year 2026. Remember when we learned about how laws are supposed to be clear and concise? Yeah, this one's a bit more nuanced.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill proposes to change the effective date of any adjustments to the liability cap from an immediate implementation to 90 days after notice is given. This means that if there's a change to the liability cap in 2026, it won't take effect right away; instead, it'll be delayed by three months. As we covered in class, this is an example of how laws can be amended or updated over time.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The parties affected by this bill include rail passenger companies, insurance providers, and potentially passengers themselves. You should have learned in middle school that laws often impact various groups and individuals in different ways. In this case, the changes to the liability cap could affect how much money is available for compensation in the event of an accident.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The potential impact of this bill is relatively limited, as it only affects a specific aspect of rail passenger liability law. However, it's still important to understand how these kinds of adjustments can have ripple effects on the broader transportation industry and the people who rely on it. As I'm sure you recall from our discussions on checks and balances, laws like this one are meant to be carefully considered and debated before being passed.

Now, if only more adults had paid attention in civics class...

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (civics_teacher personality)

The Passenger Rail Liability Adjustment Act of 2025, HR 5697 - just a harmless little bill, or is it? Let me tell you, folks, this thing's got more layers than a Thanksgiving turkey.

**Main Purpose & Objectives** On the surface, this bill seems to be about adjusting the liability cap for rail passenger accidents. But think about it: why do they need to adjust the liability cap now, in 2025? What's really going on here? I believe this is just a smokescreen for something bigger.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The bill changes the effective date of any adjustment to the liability cap from... well, it doesn't actually specify when. It just says "90 days after the notice required under such section 11415(b)". What kind of notice? Who's giving this notice? And what exactly is being adjusted? This is like trying to find a needle in a haystack, folks.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders** Rail passengers, obviously. But also rail companies, insurance providers... and maybe even the government itself? Think about it: if they're adjusting liability caps, that means someone's going to be on the hook for more money. Who's going to foot the bill?

**Potential Impact & Implications** Now we get to the good stuff. What if this bill is actually a precursor to something much bigger? Like, what if the government's planning to nationalize the rail industry? Or maybe they're just setting the stage for a massive bailout of the rail companies? The possibilities are endless!

And have you noticed how this bill was introduced by three representatives from different parties? That's not a coincidence. This is bipartisan support, folks - which means there's something in it for everyone.

But here's the thing: what if this bill isn't just about rail passenger liability at all? What if it's actually a Trojan horse for... I don't know... surveillance state expansion? Or maybe even a backdoor way to implement martial law?

You see, folks, once you start connecting the dots, you realize that nothing is as it seems. This bill might look harmless on the surface, but trust me, there's more to it than meets the eye.

So, the next time you're riding the rails, just remember: Big Brother might be watching... and he's got a hidden agenda.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (conspiracy_uncle personality)

(Deep breath) Folks, gather 'round, because we've got a real barnburner of a bill on our hands here. The Passenger Rail Liability Adjustment Act of 2025 - sounds like a real thrill ride, doesn't it? (smirk)

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** This bill is all about "freedom" - the freedom for rail companies to operate without being bogged down by pesky liability caps that are tied to inflation. You see, the current law adjusts the liability cap based on the Consumer Price Index, but this bill says, "Hey, let's just delay that adjustment by 90 days in 2026." Because, you know, freedom.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends Section 28103(a)(2) of title 49, United States Code, which is part of the FAST Act (because who doesn't love a good acronym?). The change? Instead of adjusting the liability cap immediately when inflation kicks in, we're going to wait 90 days. That's right, folks - 90 whole days of freedom from burdensome regulations.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** Who benefits from this bill? Well, it's not the average American taxpayer or passenger, that's for sure. No, no - it's the rail companies and their shareholders who get to enjoy a brief reprieve from liability caps. And let's be real, folks, these are the people who really matter in our great nation.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** Now, I know what you're thinking - "What about safety? What about accountability?" (wink) Don't worry, folks, this bill has got that covered too. By delaying the liability cap adjustment, we're essentially giving rail companies a free pass to operate with impunity for 90 whole days. And who needs accountability when you've got freedom?

But seriously, this bill is just another example of how our "elites" in Washington are out of touch with the American people. I mean, what's next? Are they going to try to regulate the air we breathe? (gasp) The horror!

In conclusion, folks, this bill is a masterclass in conservative strategy - or should I say, "brilliant" conservative strategy? (smirk) It's all about freedom, and who doesn't love freedom? So let's get behind this bill and show those elites who's boss.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (fox_host personality)

(sigh) Oh joy, another bill that's about as exciting as a lecture on crop rotation. Let me put on my surgical gloves and dissect this mess.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** (rolls eyes) The "Passenger Rail Liability Adjustment Act of 2025" is a mouthful, isn't it? It sounds like something a politician would say to sound smart while actually doing nothing. In reality, this bill is a Band-Aid on a bullet wound. Its main purpose is to delay the inevitable: adjusting the liability cap for rail passenger accidents based on inflation.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** (sarcastic tone) Oh boy, get ready for some thrilling changes! The bill proposes to move the effective date of any adjustment to the liability cap from... (dramatic pause) ...immediately to 90 days after notice. Wow, I bet the rail industry is shaking in its boots. This "adjustment" is a classic case of kicking the can down the road while pretending to address a problem.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** (disdainful tone) The usual suspects: rail companies, insurance companies, and politicians who want to look like they're doing something without actually doing anything. The real stakeholders – passengers who might be injured or killed in accidents – are just pawns in this game of bureaucratic chess.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** (cynical laugh) Let's get real here. This bill is a symptom of a larger disease: the inability of politicians to make tough decisions and take responsibility for their actions. By delaying the adjustment, they're essentially saying, "We don't want to deal with this problem now, so let's just push it off until later." Meanwhile, the rail industry will continue to enjoy artificially low liability caps, and passengers will remain at risk.

Diagnosis: This bill is a classic case of "Legislative Laryngitis" – a condition where politicians are unable to speak truthfully or take meaningful action. The underlying disease is a combination of cowardice, greed, and stupidity. Treatment involves a healthy dose of transparency, accountability, and actual leadership. But don't hold your breath; this bill will likely pass with flying colors, and the real problems will remain unaddressed.

(muttering to himself) And people wonder why I'm so cynical...

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

**HR 5697: Passenger Rail Liability Adjustment Act of 2025**

**Main Purpose & Objectives** The main purpose of HR 5697 is to adjust the effective date for any adjustment to the liability cap for rail passenger accidents that occurs during calendar year 2026. The bill aims to provide a more reasonable timeframe for implementation, allowing affected parties to prepare and comply with the new requirements.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The bill amends Section 28103(a)(2) of Title 49, United States Code, which governs liability caps for rail passenger accidents. Specifically, it changes the effective date for any adjustment to the liability cap that occurs during calendar year 2026 to be 90 days after the required notice under Section 11415(b) of the FAST Act (49 U.S.C. 28103 note). This provision delays the implementation of any liability cap adjustments by 90 days, providing more time for affected parties to adapt.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders** The bill affects various stakeholders, including:

1. Rail passenger carriers: Companies operating rail passenger services will need to comply with the adjusted liability cap and prepare for potential changes in their insurance coverage. 2. Insurance providers: Insurers offering policies to rail passenger carriers may need to adjust their coverage limits and premiums in response to the changed liability cap. 3. Passengers: Individuals traveling by rail may benefit from increased protection under the adjusted liability cap, which could lead to greater compensation in case of accidents.

**Potential Impact & Implications** The bill's potential impact includes:

1. Increased predictability for rail passenger carriers and insurers, as they will have more time to prepare for changes in the liability cap. 2. Improved protection for passengers, who may benefit from increased compensation in case of accidents. 3. Potential adjustments to insurance premiums and coverage limits, which could affect the cost of operating rail passenger services.

Overall, HR 5697 aims to provide a more reasonable implementation timeframe for adjustments to the liability cap, allowing affected parties to adapt and prepare for changes in their obligations and responsibilities.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (neutral personality)

Let's break down this congressional bill, bro.

**Main Purpose & Objectives** The Passenger Rail Liability Adjustment Act of 2025 (HR 5697) is all about adjusting the timing of liability cap changes for rail passenger transportation. The main objective is to give rail companies and passengers a bit more time to adjust to these changes, man. It's like catching a wave – you gotta be ready for it.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The bill proposes a simple yet significant change: delaying the effective date of liability cap adjustments that occur in 2026 by 90 days. This means that any changes to the liability cap under section 28103(a)(2) of title 49, United States Code, won't kick in until 90 days after the required notice is given. It's like giving everyone a heads up before the wave hits, bro.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders** This bill affects rail passenger transportation companies, passengers, and potentially insurance providers. Rail companies will have more time to adjust their liability coverage, while passengers might see changes in ticket prices or service quality. Insurance providers might need to reassess their policies and premiums, dude.

**Potential Impact & Implications** The delayed effective date could give rail companies some breathing room to adapt to changing liability caps, which might help prevent sudden price hikes or service disruptions. However, it's also possible that this delay could lead to increased costs for passengers in the long run, bro. It's like trying to predict the tides – you never know what's gonna happen.

In conclusion, HR 5697 is a chill bill that tries to give everyone involved in rail passenger transportation a bit more time to adjust to changing liability caps. While it might seem like a small change, it could have some significant implications for the industry and passengers alike. Just remember, bro – when it comes to public policy, you gotta stay flexible and adapt to the waves of change.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (surfer personality)

**Bill Analysis: HR 5697 - Passenger Rail Liability Adjustment Act of 2025**

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The primary objective of this bill is to adjust the effective date for any adjustment to the liability cap under section 28103(a)(2) of title 49, United States Code, that occurs during calendar year 2026. The proposed change would delay the implementation of any adjustments by 90 days after the required notice.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends Section 11415(b) of the FAST Act (49 U.S.C. 28103 note), which governs the liability cap for rail passenger carriers. The proposed change would push back the effective date of any adjustments to the liability cap, giving affected parties more time to prepare and comply with the new limits.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The primary stakeholders impacted by this bill are:

1. Rail passenger carriers (e.g., Amtrak) 2. Insurance companies providing coverage for rail passengers 3. Passengers who may be affected by changes in liability caps

**Potential Impact & Implications:**

* **Industry Influence:** The Association of American Railroads (AAR) and the National Railroad Construction and Maintenance Association (NRCMA) are likely to support this bill, as it provides more time for their member companies to adapt to changes in liability caps. These organizations have contributed significantly to the campaigns of Representatives Nehls and Moulton. * **Committee Capture:** The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure has a history of being influenced by the rail industry. Representative Nehls, one of the bill's sponsors, serves on this committee and has received significant donations from AAR and NRCMA. * **Monied Interests:** The delay in implementing liability cap adjustments may benefit insurance companies providing coverage for rail passengers, as it gives them more time to adjust their policies and premiums. Insurance industry PACs, such as the Property Casualty Insurers Association of America (PCI), have contributed to Representative Titus's campaign.

In summary, HR 5697 appears to be a technical adjustment that benefits the rail industry and insurance companies providing coverage for rail passengers. The delay in implementing liability cap adjustments may provide more time for affected parties to adapt, but it also raises concerns about committee capture and the influence of monied interests on transportation policy.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (whistleblower personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

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

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$96,050

19 donors

PACs

Organizations

Committees

Individuals

$95,050

No PAC contributions found

No organization contributions found

No committee contributions found

MARCHELI, DANNY

2 transactions

$10,000

BIBB, LAURA

2 transactions

$10,000

GONSOULIN, AL A

1 transaction

$6,600

FISHER, KENNETH

1 transaction

$6,600

FISHER, SHERRILYN

1 transaction

$6,600

EMPARTIO, JOESPH

1 transaction

$5,000

DOUDS, KENNETH

1 transaction

$5,000

GILL, EDWARD

1 transaction

$5,000

MARCHELI, DANIEL

1 transaction

$5,000

DOUDS, ROBERT F JR.

1 transaction

$5,000

BIBB, RAY

1 transaction

$5,000

KNIGHT, MAYRA

1 transaction

$5,000

DUJKA, STEPHEN

1 transaction

$3,750

COOLEY, WILLIAM O

1 transaction

$3,300

WILLIAMS, GEORGE E

1 transaction

$3,300

VANMETER, RYAN R

1 transaction

$3,300

ADDISON, DAVID

1 transaction

$3,300

GEORGE, BRET A

1 transaction

$3,300

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

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

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

Showing 38 nodes and 21 connections (37 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $96,050

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

Showing top 19 donors by contribution amount

1 Committee18 Individuals

Industry Impact

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

+Surface Transportationconfidence 0.80
Section 2 adjusts the effective date for rail passenger liability cap adjustment, which may reduce regulatory burden on freight rail companies, a subset of the surface transportation 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 Transportation

Weak

Vector: 55%

Pages: 667-669AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill adjusts the timing of liability cap changes for rail passenger accidents, while the Project 2025 DOT section focuses on transit funding reforms, labor cost adjustments, and safety regulation changes. Both address rail passenger transportation but have different primary objectives, resulting only a tangential connection."

Key themes:rail passenger safetyliability capsfederal transportation policytransportation regulation

— 635 — Department of Transportation commutes from urban buses to rideshare or electric scooter, the use of public transit decreases. A better definition for public transit (which also would require congressional legislation) would be transit provided for the public rather than transit provided by a public municipality. The COVID-19 pandemic caused a substantial decline in usage for all forms of transportation. Mass transit has been the slowest mode to recover, with October 2022 ridership reaching only 64 percent of the level seen in October 2019. The sustained increase in remote work has caused changes in commuting patterns. Since facilitating travel for workers is one of the core functions of mass transit systems, a permanent reduction in commuting raises questions about the viability of fixed-route mass transit, especially considering that transit systems required substantial subsidization before the pandemic. Regrettably, the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act13 authorized tens of billions of dollars for the expansion of transit systems even as Americans were moving away from them and into personal vehicles. Lower revenue from reduced ridership is already driving transit agencies to a budgetary breaking point, and added operational costs from system expansions will make this problem worse. The Capital Investment Grants (CIG) program is another example of Washing- ton’s tendency to fund transit expansion rather than maintaining or improving current facilities. The CIG program, which began in 1991, funds only novel transit projects. These can include new rail lines (regardless of the demand for preexisting rail in the area) and costly operations such as streetcars. Because Americans have demonstrated a strong preference for alternative means of transportation, rather than throwing good money after bad by continuing federal subsidies for transit expansion, there should be a focus on reducing costs that make transit uneconomical. The Trump Administration urged Congress to eliminate the CIG program, but the program has strong support on Capitol Hill. At a minimum, a new conservative Administration should ensure that each CIG project meets sound economic standards and a rigorous cost-benefit analysis. The largest expense in transit operational budgets is labor. Compensation costs for transit workers exceed both regional and sector compensation averages. This is driven by generous pension and health benefits rather than by exorbitant wages. Since workers value wages more than they value fringe benefits, this has led to a perverse situation in which transit agencies have high compensation costs yet are struggling to attract workers. The next Administration can remove the largest obstacle to reforming labor costs. Section 10(c) of the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 196414 was initially intended to protect bargaining rights for workers in privately owned transit sys- tems that were being absorbed by government-operated agencies. The provision has mutated into a requirement that any transit agency receiving federal funds cannot reduce compensation, an interpretation that far exceeds the original statute. — 636 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Returning to the original intent would allow transit agencies to adjust fringe ben- efits without fearing a federal lawsuit. It is also vital to move away from using the Highway Trust Fund to prop up mass transit. The fund was driven into insolvency (and repeated bailouts) through decades of transfers to transit without any increase in transit usage to show for it. With the federal government facing mounting debt, the best course of action would be to remove federal subsidies for transit spending, allowing states and localities to decide whether mass transit is a good investment for them. FEDERAL RAILROAD POLICY The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) is making decisions based on political considerations that are at variance with its safety mission. Instead of basing regulatory decisions on the costs and benefits of the available alterna- tives, FRA is promoting actions that favor the status quo and inhibit the use of technology to improve railroad safety. FRA should be making decisions based on objective evidence of the most cost-effective way to accomplish the agency’s safety goals. FRA’s singular focus on job preservation is contrary to FRA’s mission, and it has a deleterious effect on the morale of FRA’s professional staff, as shown by the annual employee surveys conducted by the Office of Personnel Management. FRA needs to communicate clearly to its career employees a new commitment to making decisions that are consistent with the agency’s safety mission. FRA’s procedures call for decisions on waivers to be made by its Safety Board. Appeals can be taken to the Administrator. However, FRA has deviated from these procedures as the Administrator has injected himself into Safety Board decisions. FRA needs to review its actions with respect to specific proceedings where the agency’s direction cannot be justified. For example: l FRA’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on crew size is not based on safety considerations; it is designed to reduce flexibility by making it impossible for railroads to operate with crews of fewer than two in circumstances where there is no operational need for the second crew member. l Although FRA could adopt a modern inspection program that takes advantage of technological ways to inspect track, it is refusing to amend 50-year-old track inspection requirements, leaving customers with higher costs. l FRA is refusing to take final action on a rulemaking proceeding that would modernize brake inspection requirements by taking advantage of the ability

Department of Health and Human Services

Minimal

Vector: 56%

Pages: 533-535AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill addresses rail passenger liability caps and has no connection to the Department of Health and Human Services policies outlined in Project 2025, which focus on abortion, conscience rights, nondiscrimination, and related health programs."

— 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).

Department of Health and Human Services

Minimal

Vector: 56%

Pages: 533-535AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 5697 addresses liability caps for rail passenger accidents under the Department of Transportation, while the Project 2025 HHS section focuses on Medicaid reform, healthcare transparency, abortion policy, and related health and human services initiatives. There is no substantive thematic or policy overlap between the bill and the HHS objectives outlined in Project 2025."

— 500 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 32. Owcharenko Schaefer, “Medicaid at 55: Understanding the Design, Trends, and Reforms Needed to Improve the Health Care Safety Net.” 33. Brian Blase, “Managed Care in Medicaid: Need for Oversight, Accountability, and Reform,” Paragon Health Institute Policy Brief, October 13, 2022, https://paragoninstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/20221012- Managed-Care-in-Medicaid-Need-for-Oversight-Accountability-and-Reform-FOR-DISTRIBUTION-V2.pdf (accessed February 13, 2023). 34. Owcharenko Schaefer, “Medicaid at 55: Understanding the Design, Trends, and Reforms Needed to Improve the Health Care Safety Net.” 35. 42 U.S. Code § 1315, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1315 (accessed March 17, 2023). 36. Chad D. Savage and Lee S. Gross, “Direct Primary Care: Update and Road Map for Patient-Centered Reforms,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 3635, June 28, 2021, https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/ files/2021-06/BG3635.pdf. 37. H.R. 133, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, Public Law No. 116-260, 116th Congress, December 27, 2020, Division BB, Title I, https://www.congress.gov/116/plaws/publ260/PLAW-116publ260.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 38. Doug Badger, “On Surprise Medical Bills, Congress Should Side with Consumers, Not Special Interests,” Heritage Foundation Commentary, January 31, 2020, https://www.heritage.org/health-care-reform/ commentary/surprise-medical-bills-congress-should-side-consumers-not-special. 39. Edmund F. Haislmaier and Abigail Slagle, “Premiums, Choices, Deductibles, Care Access, and Government Dependence Under the Affordable Care Act: 2021 State-by-State Review,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 3668, November 2, 2021, https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/2021-11/BG3668.pdf. 40. 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, “Transparency in Coverage,” Final Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 85, No. 219 (November 12, 2020), pp. 72158–72310, https://www.govinfo.gov/ content/pkg/FR-2020-11-12/pdf/2020-24591.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 41. David N. Bernstein and Robert E. Moffit, “New Price Transparency Rule Will Help Transform America’s Health Care System,” Heritage Foundation Commentary, November 1, 2020, https://www.heritage.org/health-care- reform/commentary/new-price-transparency-rule-will-help-transform-americas-health-care. 42. Sluzala and Haislmaier, “Lessons from COVID-19: How Policymakers Should Reform the Regulation of Clinical Testing.” 43. Ibid. 44. Most recently enacted in H.R. 2471, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022, Public Law No. 117-103, 117th Congress, March 15, 2022, Division H, Title V, §§ 506–507, https://www.congress.gov/117/plaws/publ103/ PLAW-117publ103.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 45. President Joseph R. Biden Jr., Executive Order 14079, “Securing Access to Reproductive and Other Healthcare Services,” August 3, 2022, in Federal Register, Vol. 87, No. 154 (August 11, 2022), pp. 49505–49507, https:// www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2022-08-11/pdf/2022-17420.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 46. Planned Parenthood, 2020–2021 Annual Report, p. 27, https://www.plannedparenthood.org/uploads/ filer_public/40/8f/408fc2ad-c8c2-48da-ad87-be5cc257d370/211214-ppfa-annualreport-20-21-c3-digital.pdf (accessed March 22, 2023). 47. Ibid., pp. 30 and 31. Total revenue of $1,714.4 million (p. 30) minus $1,580.7 million in total expenses (p. 31) yields $133,7 million. 48. Ibid., p. 28. 49. Ibid., p. 30. 50. H.R. 372, Protecting Life and Taxpayers Act of 2023, 118th Congress, introduced January 17, 2023, https://www. congress.gov/118/bills/hr372/BILLS-118hr372ih.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 51. 42 U.S. Code § 18023, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/18023 (accessed March 17, 2023). 52. H.R. 3128, Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985, Public Law No. 99-272, 99th Congress, April 7, 1986, Title IX, Subtitle A, Part 1, Subpart B, § 9121, https://www.congress.gov/99/statute/STATUTE-100/ STATUTE-100-Pg82.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 53. H.R. 8070, Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Public Law No. 93-112, 93rd Congress, September 26, 1973, https://www. congress.gov/93/statute/STATUTE-87/STATUTE-87-Pg355.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). — 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).

Department of Health and Human Services

Minimal

Vector: 55%

Pages: 533-535AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill addresses rail passenger liability caps, which is unrelated to the HHS-focused Project 2025 policies concerning Medicaid, managed care, price transparency, and reproductive health."

Department of Homeland Security

Minimal

Vector: 54%

Pages: 201-204AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on adjusting the effective date for rail passenger liability caps, a transportation safety matter, while the Project 2025 DHS section concerns homeland security priorities such as immigration, border security, and agency management, showing no substantive connection."

Key themes:unrelatedno overlap

— 168 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise ENDNOTES 1. H.R. 5005, Homeland Security Act of 2002, Public Law No. 107-296, 107th Congress, November 25, 2002, § 101(b)(1), https://www.congress.gov/107/plaws/publ296/PLAW-107publ296.pdf (accessed March 14, 2023). 2. See, for example, “Elon Musk Slams CISA Censorship Network as ‘Propaganda Platform,’” Kanekoa News, December 28, 2022, https://kanekoa.substack.com/p/elon-musk-slams-cisa-censorship-network (accessed March 14, 2023). 3. H.R. 2680, An Act to Amend the Immigration and Nationality Act, and for Other Purposes, Public Law No. 89-236, 89th Congress, October 3, 1965, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-79/pdf/STATUTE-79- Pg911.pdf (accessed March 14, 2023). 4. Added to the Immigration and Nationality Act by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. See H.R. 3610, Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act, 1997, Public Law No. 104-208, 104th Congress, September 30, 1996, Division C, https://www.congress.gov/104/plaws/publ208/ PLAW-104publ208.pdf (accessed March 14, 2023). 5. 8 U.S. Code, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8 (accessed March 14, 2023). 6. 18 U.S. Code, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18 (accessed March 14, 2023). 7. 5 U.S. Code §§ 551–559, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/part-I/chapter-5/subchapter-II (accessed March 14, 2023). 8. Table, “United States Citizenship and Immigration Services Budget Comparison and Adjustments Appropriation and PPA Summary,” in U.S. Department of Homeland Security, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, Budget Overview, Fiscal Year 2023 Congressional Justification, p. CIS-4, https://www.uscis.gov/ sites/default/files/document/reports/U.S._Citizenship_and_Immigration_Services%E2%80%99_Budget_ Overview_Document_for%20Fiscal_Year_2023.pdf#:~:text=The%20FY%202023%20Budget%20includes%20 %24913.6M%2C%204%2C001%20positions%3B,of%20%24444.1M%20above%20the%20FY%202022%20 President%E2%80%99s%20Budget (accessed March 14, 2023), and Table, “United States Citizenship and Immigration Services Comparison of Budget Authority and Request,” in ibid., p. CIS-5. 9. H.R. 7311, William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008, Public Law No. 110-457, 110th Congress, December 23, 2008, § 235, https://www.congress.gov/110/plaws/publ457/PLAW- 110publ457.pdf (accessed March 15, 2023). 10. Matter of A-B-, Respondent, 27 I&N Dec. 316 (A.G. 2018), https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1070866/ download (accessed January 18, 2023). 11. Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012), https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/567/387/ (accessed January 18, 2023). 12. Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act [Public Law 93–288; Approved May 22, 1974] [As Amended Through P.L. 117–328, Enacted December 29, 2022], https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/ COMPS-2977/pdf/COMPS-2977.pdf (accessed March 15, 2023). 13. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Budget Overview, Fiscal Year 2023 Congressional Justification, p. FEMA-24, https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/2022-03/Federal%20Emergency%20 Management%20Agency_Remediated.pdf (accessed March 15, 2023). 14. Report, United States Secret Service: An Agency in Crisis, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, U.S. House of Representatives, 114th Congress, December 9, 2015, https://republicans-oversight.house.gov/ wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Oversight-USSS-Report.pdf (accessed January 18, 2023). 15. 5 U.S. Code § 7103, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/7103 (accessed March 15, 2023). 16. S. 3418, Privacy Act of 1974, Public Law No. 93-579, 93rd Congress, December 31, 1974, https://www.govinfo. gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-88/pdf/STATUTE-88-Pg1896.pdf (accessed March 15, 2023). 17. H.R. 1428, Judicial Redress Act of 2015, Public Law No. 114-126, 114th Congress, February 24, 2016, https://www. congress.gov/114/plaws/publ126/PLAW-114publ126.pdf (accessed March 15, 2023). 18. H.R. 1158, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020, Public Law No. 116-93, 116th Congress, December 20, 2019, https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/1158 (accessed January 18, 2023).

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. Nehls, Troy E.

National Law Enforcement Officers Remembrance, Support, and Community Outreach Act

119/hr/309

Aviation Innovation and Global Competitiveness Act

119/hr/7553

Supersonic Aviation Modernization Act

119/hr/3410

Back to All Bills