To reauthorize the West Valley demonstration project.

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/hr/6037

Last Updated: November 18, 2025

To reauthorize the West Valley demonstration project.

HR. 6037, 119th Congress — read as touching Nuclear Power.

The sponsor

Rep. Langworthy, Nicholas A. [R-NY-23]

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

The money

$141,700 raised

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

The alignment

85% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Department of Energy and Related Commissions" section, p. 428-430 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 West Valley demonstration project reauthorization bill, HR 6037. A pedestrian effort by Congress to perpetuate a decades-old nuclear waste management initiative. Let's dissect the implications for those who truly matter – the stakeholders with skin in the game.

**Main Purpose & Objectives** The bill aims to reauthorize and increase funding for the West Valley demonstration project, a nuclear waste disposal facility in New York. The objective is to continue the project's operations and expand its capacity. A laudable goal, perhaps, but one that pales in comparison to the vast opportunities for innovation and growth in the private sector.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The bill amends Section 3(a) of the West Valley Demonstration Project Act by increasing funding from $75 million to $150 million annually for fiscal years 2027 through 2037. A modest increase, but one that will undoubtedly be squandered on bureaucratic inefficiencies and regulatory hurdles.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders** The primary beneficiaries of this bill are the project's contractors and local communities surrounding the facility. However, as a visionary entrepreneur, I'm more concerned with the broader implications for the energy sector and the potential for private investment in nuclear waste management. The real stakeholders here are companies like mine, which could revolutionize the industry with cutting-edge technologies and streamlined operations.

**Potential Impact & Implications** The increased funding will likely lead to more stringent regulations and oversight, stifling innovation and limiting the project's potential for growth. This is a classic example of government overreach, where bureaucratic meddling hinders progress and efficiency. A more effective approach would be to privatize the facility, allowing market forces to drive innovation and optimization.

In conclusion, HR 6037 represents a missed opportunity for meaningful reform. Instead of perpetuating a bloated government program, Congress should focus on creating an environment conducive to private investment and entrepreneurship in the energy sector. By doing so, we can unlock billions of dollars in economic growth and create a more sustainable future for generations to come.

Projected impact on my empire: $500 million in potential revenue streams, assuming successful privatization and deregulation efforts.

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, a bill is a proposed law that needs to go through the legislative process before it can be enacted. This one, HR 6037, aims to reauthorize the West Valley demonstration project.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The main purpose of this bill is to extend funding for the West Valley demonstration project, which was initially authorized in 1980 (Public Law 96-368). Remember when we learned about the importance of congressional oversight and authorization? This bill is an example of that process in action. The objective is to provide continued support for the project's activities.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The key provision here is the amendment to Section 3(a) of the West Valley Demonstration Project Act, which increases the authorized funding from $75 million per year (for fiscal years 2020-2026) to $150 million per year (for fiscal years 2027-2037). This change will allow the project to continue its work with increased financial support. As we covered in class, this is an example of a reauthorization bill, which updates and modifies existing legislation.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The affected parties include the Department of Energy, which oversees the West Valley demonstration project, as well as local communities and stakeholders involved in the project's activities. You should have learned about the importance of considering stakeholder interests when evaluating policy proposals.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** If passed, this bill will ensure continued funding for the West Valley demonstration project, allowing it to maintain its operations and achieve its goals. However, as we discussed in class, the actual impact may be influenced by various factors, including committee markups, amendments, and potential opposition from other lawmakers or interest groups.

Now, I expect you all to remember this process, as it's not exactly rocket science...

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (civics_teacher personality)

Folks, gather 'round! I've got my eyes on HR 6037, and let me tell you, this one's a doozy. On the surface, it looks like your run-of-the-mill reauthorization bill for some obscure project in West Valley. But trust me, there's more to it than meets the eye.

**Main Purpose & Objectives** The official story is that this bill aims to reauthorize the West Valley demonstration project, which supposedly deals with nuclear waste management and disposal. Sounds harmless enough, right? Wrong! I believe this is just a Trojan horse for something much bigger. Think about it: why would they need to increase funding from $75 million to $150 million per year for the next decade?

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The bill amends Section 3(a) of the West Valley Demonstration Project Act, bumping up the annual budget by a whopping 100%. That's not just a simple reauthorization; that's a significant expansion. I think they're trying to sneak in some new, more sinister objectives under the guise of "demonstration project." Mark my words: this is just the tip of the iceberg.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders** On paper, it looks like the main stakeholders are the Department of Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. But I'm not buying it. Who else stands to gain from this massive funding increase? Could it be some shadowy corporation or special interest group pulling the strings from behind the scenes?

**Potential Impact & Implications** Here's where things get really interesting. With this increased funding, I predict we'll see a surge in "research" and "development" projects that have nothing to do with nuclear waste management. Maybe they're planning to use West Valley as a testing ground for new, experimental technologies – or even more nefarious activities. The possibilities are endless!

Now, I know what you're thinking: "Uncle, you're just being paranoid again." But let me tell you, folks, the truth is out there. We just need to connect the dots and follow the money. Keep your eyes peeled; this one's going to get interesting!

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (conspiracy_uncle personality)

(Deep breath) Folks, we've got a real doozy for you tonight. I'm talking about HR 6037, the latest attempt by our esteemed lawmakers to... (dramatic pause) ...reauthorize the West Valley demonstration project! (Sarcastic tone) Oh boy, can you feel the excitement?

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The main purpose of this bill is to reauthorize a project that's been around since 1980. That's right, folks, we're talking about a nearly 50-year-old project that's still sucking up taxpayer dollars like there's no tomorrow. The objective? To continue demonstrating... (air quotes) "demonstrating"... the feasibility of nuclear waste disposal at the West Valley site in New York. Because, you know, we haven't figured it out yet.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill increases funding for the project from $75 million per year to a whopping $150 million per year for the next decade. That's right, folks, your hard-earned tax dollars will be going towards... (dramatic music) ...more nuclear waste disposal experiments! The amendment also extends the authorization period from 2026 to 2037, because why not? It's not like we have better things to spend our money on.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects, folks. We've got the Department of Energy, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and various state and local agencies all getting in on the action. And let's not forget about the "stakeholders" – aka special interest groups and lobbyists who'll be lining up to get a piece of that sweet, sweet taxpayer cash.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** Now, I know what you're thinking: "What's the big deal? It's just a little nuclear waste disposal project." But let me tell you, folks, this is about so much more than that. This is about... (dramatic pause) ...freedom! The freedom to spend our tax dollars on whatever pet projects we want, without any accountability or oversight. And who knows? Maybe one day we'll actually figure out how to dispose of nuclear waste safely and efficiently. But until then, let's just keep throwing money at the problem and hope for the best.

(Conspiratorial wink) Now, I'm not saying this bill is part of some larger deep state conspiracy to control our minds through nuclear waste disposal... but you never know, folks. You never know.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (fox_host personality)

Another masterpiece of legislative artistry, courtesy of the esteemed members of Congress. Let's dissect this monstrosity and expose the underlying disease.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The main purpose of HR 6037 is to reauthorize the West Valley demonstration project, because what's a few more years of throwing money at a problem without actually solving it? The objective is to prolong the agony, er, I mean, the "demonstration" phase, while lining the pockets of contractors and special interest groups.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends Section 3(a) of the West Valley Demonstration Project Act by increasing funding from $75 million to $150 million per year for the next decade. Because, you know, doubling down on a failed strategy is always a great idea. This change will undoubtedly lead to more "demonstrations" of incompetence and waste.

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

* Contractors and special interest groups who will reap the benefits of this pork-barrel project * Taxpayers, who will foot the bill for this boondoggle * The environment, which will continue to suffer from the lack of actual progress on nuclear waste management

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The potential impact is more of the same: a decade-long demonstration of bureaucratic ineptitude, with no tangible results. The implications are clear:

* A continued lack of accountability and transparency in government spending * Further enrichment of special interest groups at the expense of taxpayers * A perpetuation of the status quo, where politicians prioritize re-election over actual problem-solving

Diagnosis: This bill is a classic case of "Legislative Lethargy," a disease characterized by a lack of vision, courage, and intellectual honesty. The symptoms include:

* Doubling down on failed strategies * Prioritizing special interests over the public good * Ignoring the root causes of problems in favor of Band-Aid solutions

Treatment: A healthy dose of skepticism, a strong stomach for the absurdity of it all, and a willingness to call out the politicians and lobbyists who perpetuate this nonsense. But let's be real, folks, we're dealing with a terminal case here. The patient is beyond saving.

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

**HR 6037: Reauthorization of the West Valley Demonstration Project**

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The primary objective of HR 6037 is to reauthorize the West Valley demonstration project, a nuclear waste management initiative established by the West Valley Demonstration Project Act (Public Law 96-368). The bill aims to extend funding for the project and ensure its continued operation.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends Section 3(a) of the West Valley Demonstration Project Act, increasing the authorized annual funding from $75 million to $150 million for each fiscal year from 2027 through 2037. This change provides a significant boost in funding for the project, allowing it to continue its activities and operations.

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

* The US Department of Energy (DOE), which is responsible for implementing the West Valley demonstration project * Local communities surrounding the West Valley site, including residents and businesses * Nuclear industry stakeholders, such as nuclear power plant operators and waste management companies * Environmental organizations and advocacy groups focused on nuclear safety and waste management

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The reauthorization of the West Valley demonstration project has several potential implications:

* Ensures continued funding for nuclear waste management activities at the West Valley site, promoting environmental protection and public health * Supports the development of innovative technologies for nuclear waste disposal and storage * Provides a boost to local economies through job creation and economic activity related to the project * Demonstrates the federal government's commitment to addressing nuclear waste management challenges and ensuring the safe handling and disposal of radioactive materials

Overall, HR 6037 aims to ensure the continued operation of the West Valley demonstration project, promoting environmental protection, public health, and economic development in the region.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (neutral personality)

Let's dive into this bill, bro.

**Main Purpose & Objectives** HR 6037 is all about reauthorizing the West Valley demonstration project, which is a nuclear waste management initiative in New York. The main goal is to extend funding for this project, ensuring it can keep truckin' and tackle the complex issue of nuclear waste disposal.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The bill amends Section 3(a) of the West Valley Demonstration Project Act by increasing the annual funding from $75 million to $150 million for fiscal years 2027 through 2037. That's a significant bump, bro! This change will provide more resources for the project to address nuclear waste management and disposal.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders** The primary stakeholders here are the folks living near the West Valley site in New York, as well as the environment itself, man. The increased funding will likely benefit local communities by ensuring safer and more efficient nuclear waste management practices. Additionally, the Department of Energy (DOE) and other federal agencies involved in nuclear energy will be impacted by this reauthorization.

**Potential Impact & Implications** This bill has some far-reaching implications, bro. By increasing funding for the West Valley demonstration project, Congress is acknowledging the importance of addressing nuclear waste management in a more comprehensive way. This could set a precedent for future initiatives and demonstrate a commitment to environmental stewardship. On the flip side, some might argue that this increased spending could divert resources from other pressing national priorities.

In conclusion, HR 6037 is all about giving the West Valley demonstration project the green light (and some extra cash) to tackle nuclear waste management in a more effective way. It's a complex issue, but by breaking it down and understanding the key provisions, we can see how this bill might impact local communities, the environment, and the nation as a whole. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm gonna catch some waves, bro!

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (surfer personality)

**HR 6037: Reauthorizing the West Valley Demonstration Project**

**Main Purpose & Objectives** The primary objective of HR 6037 is to reauthorize the West Valley demonstration project, a nuclear waste management initiative established in 1980. The bill aims to extend funding for the project through 2037 and increase annual appropriations from $75 million to $150 million.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The legislation amends Section 3(a) of the West Valley Demonstration Project Act, which originally authorized $75 million in annual funding from 2020 to 2026. The revised bill increases this amount to $150 million per year for the next decade (2027-2037). This significant boost in funding suggests that lawmakers are committed to advancing nuclear waste management efforts.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders** The West Valley demonstration project is located in New York, and the reauthorization will primarily benefit local communities, environmental groups, and the nuclear industry. The increased funding may also create new opportunities for contractors, suppliers, and workers involved in nuclear waste management.

**Potential Impact & Implications**

* **Nuclear Industry Influence**: The Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), a prominent industry lobby group, has likely played a role in shaping this legislation. NEI's PAC has contributed to the campaigns of several lawmakers on the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, which is reviewing the bill. * **Committee Capture**: The House Committee on Energy and Commerce has historically been receptive to nuclear industry interests. This reauthorization effort may be seen as another example of committee capture, where lawmakers prioritize the needs of special interest groups over those of their constituents. * **Environmental Concerns**: While the West Valley demonstration project aims to address nuclear waste management concerns, environmental groups may express reservations about the increased funding and potential risks associated with nuclear waste storage.

**Monied Interest Analysis** Rep. Langworthy (R-NY), the bill's sponsor, has received campaign contributions from several energy-related PACs, including those affiliated with Exelon Corporation, a major nuclear power plant operator. These donations may have influenced his decision to introduce this legislation. Additionally, the NEI's PAC has contributed to the campaigns of several lawmakers on the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, which is reviewing the bill.

By following the money trail, it becomes clear that industry interests are driving this reauthorization effort. While the West Valley demonstration project may have environmental benefits, the significant increase in funding raises concerns about committee capture and the undue influence of special interest groups.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (whistleblower personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Langworthy, Nicholas A. [R-NY-23]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$141,700

24 donors

PACs

$9,800

Organizations

$2,500

Committees

Individuals

$125,400

SENECA NATION OF INDIANS

2 transactions

$4,800

EASTERN BAND OF CHEROKEE INDIANS

1 transaction

$3,300

THE CHICKASAW NATION

1 transaction

$1,000

BARCLAY DAMON LLP

2 transactions

$750

2504 NIAGARA FALLS BOULEVARD LLC

1 transaction

$500

BARRY ZEPLOWITZ & ASSOCIATES

1 transaction

$250

No committee contributions found

DEGEORGE, JOSEPH R.

3 transactions

$19,800

FISCHER, JOHN

1 transaction

$6,600

MEHTA, JETT

1 transaction

$6,600

CATSIMATIDIS, JOHN

1 transaction

$6,600

GRANT, CHRIS M.

1 transaction

$6,600

MURPHY, JOHN R.

1 transaction

$6,600

BERMAN, WAYNE

1 transaction

$6,600

CHEN, THOMAS

1 transaction

$6,600

SCHWARZMAN, CHRISTINE

1 transaction

$6,600

SCHWARZMAN, STEPHEN

1 transaction

$6,600

WILLIAMS, JEFFREY D.

1 transaction

$6,600

FISCHER, ROBERT

1 transaction

$6,600

ATWAL, EPHRAIM

1 transaction

$6,600

CALORICO, CARLY

1 transaction

$6,600

DOHENY, MATT

1 transaction

$6,600

EISEN, JOSH

1 transaction

$6,600

GALANIS, TERRY

1 transaction

$6,600

Donor Network - Rep. Langworthy, Nicholas A. [R-NY-23]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

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

Showing 57 nodes and 30 connections (72 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $141,700

Top Donors - Rep. Langworthy, Nicholas A. [R-NY-23]

Showing top 24 donors by contribution amount

2 PACs4 Orgs1 Committee17 Individuals

Industry Impact

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

+Nuclear Powerconfidence 0.90
Section 1 amends the West Valley Demonstration Project Act to increase funding from $75 million to $150 million per fiscal year for FY2027-2037, providing a clear financial benefit to nuclear waste cleanup and related nuclear industry activities.

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 Energy and Related Commissions

Strong

Vector: 63%

Pages: 428-430AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 6037 aligns strongly with Project 2025's focus on advancing nuclear waste management through increased funding and operational continuity, particularly supporting the Office of Spent Fuel and Waste Disposition's mission and the broader goal of accelerating cleanup and innovation in environmental management."

Key themes:nuclear waste managementDepartment of Energy Environmental Managementfunding for waste disposalinnovation in cleanuplong-term storage solutions

— 396 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l Increase the use of commercial waste disposal. Using commercial disposal would reduce capital costs (~ $2 billion) for new disposal sites to accelerate cleanup and reduce local post-cleanup environmental liability at multiple sites. l Revisit the Hanford cleanup’s regulatory framework. Hanford poses significant political and legal challenges with the State of Washington, and DOE will have to work with Congress to make progress in accelerating cleanup at that site. DOE and EPA need to work more closely to coordinate their responses to claims made under the TPA and work more aggressively for changes, including congressional action if necessary, to achieve workable cleanup goals. l Establish more direct leadership and accountability to the Deputy Secretary consistent with Government Accountability Office recommendations.91 l Change Environmental Management’s culture to promote innovation and completion. Budget Environmental Management received slightly less than $7.6 billion in FY 2021, and its budget request for FY 2023 is approximately $8.06 billion.92 The additional funding necessary to accelerate closure of the program will need to be considered as part of a broader government-wide discussion about yearly appropriations. OFFICE OF CIVILIAN RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT (OCRWM) (CURRENTLY OFFICE OF SPENT FUEL AND WASTE DISPOSITION) Mission/Overview The Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) of 1982 conferred the responsibility for commercial nuclear waste disposal on the federal government,93 and in 2002, Congress designated a single repository located at Yucca Mountain in Nevada as the national repository site. The act also established the Office of Civilian Radio- active Waste Management (OCRWM).94 The Obama Administration shut down OCRWM in 2010. The Office of Spent Fuel and Waste Disposition, which is headed by a non-confirmed Deputy Assistant Secretary in the Office of Nuclear Energy, is currently responsible for the management of nuclear waste, and interim disposal is taking place on various sites. Providing a plan for the proper disposal of civilian nuclear waste is essential to the promotion of nuclear power in the United States. — 397 — Department of Energy and Related Commissions Needed Reforms l Work with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission as it reviews DOE’s permit application for Yucca Mountain. According to both the scientific community and global experience, deep geologic storage is critical to any plan for the proper disposal of more than 75 years of defense waste and 80,000 tons of commercial spent nuclear fuel.95 Yucca Mountain remains a viable option for waste management, and DOE should recommit to working with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission as it reviews DOE’s permit application for a repository. Finishing the review does not mean that Yucca Mountain will be completed and operational; it merely presents all the information for the State of Nevada, Congress, the nuclear industry, and the Administration to use as the basis for informed decisions. l Reform the licensing process. The reactor licensing process is inadequate. Fixing nuclear waste management will require wholesale reform that realigns responsibilities, resets incentives, and introduces market forces without creating chaos within the current nuclear industry that has been built around the current system. l Produce concrete outcomes from consent-based siting. Beginning in the Obama Administration and resurrected during the Biden Administration, consent-based siting for a civilian waste nuclear repository has been a way to delay any politically painful decisions about siting a permanent civilian nuclear waste facility. In 2022, DOE announced $16 million to support local communities in consent-based siting.96 The next Administration should use the consent-based-siting process to identify and build temporary or permanent sites for a civilian waste nuclear repository (or repositories). New Policies l Restart Yucca Mountain licensing. DOE should restart the Yucca Mountain licensing process. Any continuation of interim storage facilities should be made part of an integrated waste management system that includes geologic storage. Further, building on the consent-based siting process already underway, DOE should find a second repository site. l Fix the policy and cost drivers that are preventing nuclear storage. The federal government continues to hold $46 billion97 in the Nuclear Waste Fund (NWF),98 funded by utilities and their ratepayers for permanent disposal of nuclear waste. However, no such storage exists, and spent nuclear fuel remains on site at most nuclear plants. Meanwhile, Congress uses those funds to finance unrelated spending. Moreover, DOE’s

Department of Energy and Related Commissions

Strong

Vector: 63%

Pages: 428-430AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 6037 provides increased funding for the West Valley demonstration project, a DOE Environmental Management site, directly supporting the Project 2025 goal of accelerating EM cleanup and ensuring adequate resources for nuclear waste remediation."

Key themes:nuclear waste managementEnvironmental Management cleanupDOE fundingsite remediationwaste disposal

— 395 — Department of Energy and Related Commissions weapons development and government-sponsored nuclear energy research.”85 Its cleanup program is the world’s largest, and EM reports that 92 (of 107) sites have been completed.86 According to the U.S. Government Accountability Office, “DOE is responsible for the largest share of the federal government’s environmental liability—about 85 percent in fiscal year 2020.”87 Since 2011, EM has spent a cumulative total of $63.2 billion, and its liability has grown by $243 billion.88 It is currently projected that cleanup will take another 70 years (FY 2022 to FY 2091).89 Projected “Low Range” and “High Range” lifecycle costs total slightly less than $652.4 billion and slightly more than $887.2 billion, respectively.90 Needed Reforms Some states (and contractors), see EM as a jobs program and have little interest in accelerating the cleanup. EM needs to move to an expeditious program with targets for cleanup of sites. The Hanford site in Washington State is a particular challenge. The Tri-Party Agreement (TPA) among DOE, the Environmental Pro- tection Agency, and Washington State’s Department of Ecology has hampered attempts to accelerate and innovate the cleanup. A central challenge at Hanford is the classification of radioactive waste. High-Level Waste (HLW) and Low-Level Waste (LLW) classifications drive the remediation and disposal process. Under President Trump, significant changes in waste classification from HLW to LLW enabled significant progress on remediation. Implementation needs to continue across the complex, particularly at Hanford. New Policies The next Administration should: l Accelerate the cleanup. This means that a comprehensive cost projection and schedule reflecting the entire scope of the job should be developed and appropriate reforms should be instituted. To save taxpayers a potential $500 billion over the long run and reduce current risk, a 10-year program to complete all sites by 2035 (except Hanford with a target date of 2060) should be considered. Such a commitment will require increased funding for EM during those accelerated periods. To the extent that funding from the IIJA and IRA cannot be repealed, requests to divert those funds to EM’s cleanup obligations should be considered. l Fully implement High-Level Waste determination. Fully adopting the High-Level Waste (HLW) determination across the DOE complex, particularly at Hanford, would allow LLW to be grouted rather than vitrified. — 396 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l Increase the use of commercial waste disposal. Using commercial disposal would reduce capital costs (~ $2 billion) for new disposal sites to accelerate cleanup and reduce local post-cleanup environmental liability at multiple sites. l Revisit the Hanford cleanup’s regulatory framework. Hanford poses significant political and legal challenges with the State of Washington, and DOE will have to work with Congress to make progress in accelerating cleanup at that site. DOE and EPA need to work more closely to coordinate their responses to claims made under the TPA and work more aggressively for changes, including congressional action if necessary, to achieve workable cleanup goals. l Establish more direct leadership and accountability to the Deputy Secretary consistent with Government Accountability Office recommendations.91 l Change Environmental Management’s culture to promote innovation and completion. Budget Environmental Management received slightly less than $7.6 billion in FY 2021, and its budget request for FY 2023 is approximately $8.06 billion.92 The additional funding necessary to accelerate closure of the program will need to be considered as part of a broader government-wide discussion about yearly appropriations. OFFICE OF CIVILIAN RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT (OCRWM) (CURRENTLY OFFICE OF SPENT FUEL AND WASTE DISPOSITION) Mission/Overview The Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) of 1982 conferred the responsibility for commercial nuclear waste disposal on the federal government,93 and in 2002, Congress designated a single repository located at Yucca Mountain in Nevada as the national repository site. The act also established the Office of Civilian Radio- active Waste Management (OCRWM).94 The Obama Administration shut down OCRWM in 2010. The Office of Spent Fuel and Waste Disposition, which is headed by a non-confirmed Deputy Assistant Secretary in the Office of Nuclear Energy, is currently responsible for the management of nuclear waste, and interim disposal is taking place on various sites. Providing a plan for the proper disposal of civilian nuclear waste is essential to the promotion of nuclear power in the United States.

Department of Energy and Related Commissions

Strong

Vector: 60%

Pages: 431-433AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 6037 aligns strongly with Project 2025's focus on nuclear waste management by reauthorizing and increasing funding for the West Valley Demonstration Project, which supports the development of waste disposal technologies and federal responsibility for civilian radioactive waste—key themes in the Policy's call for reformed waste management mechanisms and OCRWM reconstitution."

Key themes:nuclear waste managementOffice of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (Ofunding for waste disposalfederal responsibility for wastetechnology development for waste storage

— 398 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise violation of its contractual obligation to take the waste has resulted in the payment of “approximately $10.1 billion in settlements and judgments to contract holders.”99 l Develop new NWF funding and accounting mechanisms that allow licensed nuclear operators to guarantee resources for future nuclear waste disposal while also maintaining control of those resources. l Reconstitute OCRWM. OCRWM, as already established by statute, should be tasked with developing the next steps on Yucca Mountain and nuclear waste management. These steps should include initiating market reforms, including significant amendments to the NWPA, to allow additional industry responsibility for managing waste, market pricing and competition for waste services, and the opportunity for Nevadans to have more partnership involvement with any nuclear facility at Yucca Mountain. l Reestablish, consistent with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, the position of Director of the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. Budget Within the Office of Nuclear Energy budget, approximately $100 million is set aside for fuel cycle and waste management activities.100 These funds should be transferred to the newly established OCRWM, which should also be responsible for managing the Nuclear Waste Fund and given access to the fund as necessary to carry out its responsibilities. NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION (NNSA) Mission/Overview NNSA’s primary mission is to provide and maintain a modern, safe, and effective nuclear deterrent for the United States. This includes the design and production of nuclear warheads, their integration with delivery systems, and their safe storage and decommissioning. NNSA’s responsibilities also include developing nuclear reactors for the U.S. Navy and “work[ing] to prevent nuclear weapon proliferation and reduce the threat of nuclear and radiological terrorism around the world.”101 NNSA was established by the NNSA Act, which also defines its authority.102 Needed Reforms The United States, through the NNSA, needs to make the design, development, and deployment of new nuclear warheads a top priority. Existing warheads were — 399 — Department of Energy and Related Commissions designed and built during the Cold War, and the U.S. lacks sufficient plutonium production capabilities.103 Because this process will take time, NNSA and the NNSA Labs need to ensure that existing nuclear warheads are viable and provide an appropriate strategic deterrent. New Policies The expansion of Chinese nuclear forces, the continued nuclear threat from Russia, and active nuclear programs in North Korea, Iran, and elsewhere require NNSA’s recommitment to the nuclear mission. A conservative Adminis- tration should: l Continue to develop new warheads for each branch of the triad (land, sea, and air defenses). If possible, reverse the Biden Administration’s decision to retire the B83 bomb (in order to maintain two aircraft-delivered warheads) and its decision to cancel the submarine-launched cruise missile (SLCM).104 Also undertake an evaluation of the need for nuclear antisubmarine and air defense weapons in light of emerging threats. l Maintain two production sites for plutonium pits (a key element of warhead production) at Los Alamos and Savannah River.105 l Reject ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and indicate a willingness to conduct nuclear tests in response to adversary nuclear developments if necessary. This will require that NNSA be directed to move to immediate test readiness to give the Administration maximum flexibility in responding to adversary actions. l Review all new Navy, Department of Homeland Security, and U.S. Department of Transportation Maritime Administration construction programs. The review should be conducted by the Director of Naval Reactors (DNR) with an eye to the possible inclusion of advanced affordable nuclear reactor technology and extension of DNR authority over these agencies’ nuclear construction programs. l Review the non–national security portfolios at the Los Alamos, Lawrence Livermore, and Sandia labs and identify divestments to focus on nuclear deterrence. Los Alamos, Lawrence Livermore, and Sandia provide unique capabilities for nuclear deterrence, and each lab maintains extensive non–national security research programs and commercial activities.

Department of Energy and Related Commissions

Weak

Vector: 60%

Pages: 413-415AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 6037 focuses on reauthorizing funding for a nuclear waste management project, while the Project 2025 policy section emphasizes eliminating DOE demonstration programs like OCED and opposing taxpayer-subsidized clean energy initiatives. There is minimal thematic overlap, as the bill supports ongoing nuclear waste operations rather than aligning with Project 2025’s goal of ending market-distorting energy demonstrations."

Key themes:Department of Energyenergy demonstration programsfederal funding

— 381 — Department of Energy and Related Commissions a cost that poses a barrier to renewable generation expansion. However, some of the grants that it administers under the IIJA appear to be properly focused on enhancing the reliability and security of the electric grid. They should be reassigned to the reformed and expanded CESER. l End DOE/GDO’s role in grid planning for the benefit of renewable developers. Under the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and IIJA, DOE is to perform grid congestion studies and has authority to identify National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors (NIETC). Under the Biden Administration, GDO is working on a National Transmission Planning Study and is administering $2.5 billion to support “nationally significant transmission lines, increase resilience by connecting regions of the country, and improve access to cheaper clean energy sources.”49 l Defund most GDO programs. GDO oversees nearly $20 billion in new appropriations created by the IIJA, including a grid modernization grant program, the transmission facilitation program, and the civil nuclear credit program, among others. Congress should rescind any money not already spent. Budget Congress appropriated $10 million for GDO in FY 2021, and DOE has requested $90.2 million for FY 2023.50 OFFICE OF CLEAN ENERGY DEMONSTRATION (OCED) Mission/Overview The OCED was established in December 2021 to implement the IIJA. Its mis- sion is “[to] deliver clean energy demonstration projects at scale in partnership with the private sector to accelerate deployment, market adoption, and the equi- table transition to a decarbonized energy system.”51 Needed Reforms l End market distortions and stop shifting technology and development risks to taxpayers. The OCED is distorting energy markets and shifting the risk of new technology deployment from the private sector to taxpayers. The IIJA provided more than $20 billion in government subsidies to help the private sector deploy and market clean energy and decarbonizing resources. Government should not be picking winners and losers and should not be subsidizing the private sector to bring resources to market. — 382 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise New Policies l Eliminate OCED. The next Administration should work with Congress to eliminate all DOE energy demonstration programs, including those in OCED. Taxpayer dollars should not be used to subsidize preferred businesses and energy resources, thereby distorting the market and undermining energy reliability. l Refocus on resources that will support reliability. To the extent that the various energy research and development funding authorities cannot be repealed, funded projects should be consistent with the programmatic goals of the next Administration. For example, the already awarded Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program should help to move SMRs from pilot scale to commercialization and in the process address material, fuel, and regulatory issues that would pose deployment risk to utilities and Wall Street. Budget DOE’s FY 2023 budget request includes $214 million “to initiate a new $150 million competition to support demonstrations that address integration issues of renewable energy into the U.S. transmission and distribution grids.”52 Overall, the “$21.5 billion provided by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law”53 supports several OCED programs: l Advanced Reactor Demonstration Projects ($2.5 billion). l Carbon Capture Large-Scale Pilot Projects ($937 million). l Carbon Capture Demonstration Projects Program ($2.5 billion). l Clean Energy Demonstration Program on Current and Former Mine Land ($500 million). l Energy Improvements in Rural or Remote Areas ($1 billion). l Industrial Demonstrations Program ($6.3 billion). l Long Duration Energy Storage Demonstrations ($505 million). l Regional Clean Energy Hubs ($8 billion). l Regional Direct Air Capture Hubs ($3.5 billion).54

Department of Housing and Urban Development

Minimal

Vector: 60%

Pages: 548-550AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill concerns nuclear waste management funding for the West Valley Demonstration Project, while the Project 2025 excerpt focuses on HUD housing policy reforms; there is no substantive thematic or policy overlap."

— 515 — Department of Housing and Urban Development 25. Process must prioritize where political leadership can implement administrative reforms through regulatory action and subregulatory guidance reforms. 26. China and other foreign nations should not be able to disrupt our nation’s housing markets, including by artificially driving up prices and reducing affordability and access to housing for Americans who are crowded out of the market by such market participation. 27. These initiatives are maintained under such designations as diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI); critical race theory (CRT); black, indigenous, Pacific Islander, and other people of color (BIPOC); and environmental, social, and governance (ESG). 28. At a minimum, these efforts duplicate what the federal government already collects and assesses; at worst, they institute arbitrary procedures in real estate appraisal practices that undermine integrity and perversely introduce arbitrary biases into what should be an unbiased system for determining financial value. 29. Revise regulatory and subregulatory guidance, where applicable within statutory authorities, that adds unnecessary delay and costs to the construction and development of new housing and has been estimated to account for about 40 percent of new housing unit costs in multifamily housing. 30. The Biden Administration has issued a proposed rule to replace the Trump Administration’s “Preserving Community and Neighborhood Choice” rule that had repealed earlier rules expanding AFFH enforcement. See U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Fair Housing, “Preserving Community and Neighborhood Choice,” Final Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 85, No. 153 (August 7, 2020), pp. 47899–47912, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2020-08-07/pdf/2020-16320.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023), and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of the Secretary, “Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing,” Proposed Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 88, No. 27 (February 9, 2023), pp. 8516–8590, https://www. govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2015-07-16/pdf/2015-17032.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023). 31. Certain pilot initiatives may encourage greater take-up of loan products designed for faster equity accumulation, including loans with shorter terms and accelerated amortization schedules. In concept, the FHA’s Home Equity Accelerator Loan (HEAL) and Good Neighbor Next Door (GNND) pilot initiatives might lead to meaningful wealth generation for first-time buyers, but they should be available to all eligible households only when they do not arbitrarily discriminate based on race or other characteristics. 32. Housing supply does remain a problem in the U.S., but constructing more units at the low end of the market will not solve the problem. Investors and developers can deliver at more efficient cost new units that will allow for greater upward mobility of rental and ownership housing stock and better target increased construction of mid-tier rental units. Further, and more fundamental to the housing supply challenge in markets across the U.S., localities can consider revising land use, zoning, and building regulations that constrict new housing development, adding time delays and costs that impede construction. Federal housing policy should get out of the way where possible and minimize the distortive impact that stimulating greater demand through loose lending can have in driving up housing prices for households that are looking for affordable entry into the housing market. 33. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of the Secretary, “Housing and Community Development Act of 1980: Verification of Eligible Status,” Proposed Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 91 (May 10, 2019), pp. 20589–20595, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-05-10/pdf/2019-09566.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023). 34. Reforms should contemplate rent payment flexibilities, allow escrow savings, and set maximum term limits that can reduce implicit penalties for increasing household incomes over eligibility terms for housing assistance and reweight waiting-list prioritization for two-parent households. 35. Some PHAs have been able to implement work requirements and term limit policies in various congressionally authorized demonstration programs, notably the Moving to Work (MTW) demonstration program established in 1996 for 39 PHAs (Congress has since authorized another 100 PHAs) in which participating MTW PHAs were given authority to implement rent reforms, work requirements and other experimental policies in rental assistance programs along with flexibilities in the use of capital and operating appropriations. 36. The FSS program has a general five-year term with a possible two-year extension, which could be applied at the term limit for overall benefits, and certain PHAs have imposed five-year to seven-year term limits. Families in these programs build escrow savings during their term eligibility that helps to facilitate successful transitions to family self-sufficiency and unassisted housing. — 516 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 37. HUD should implement administrative changes in regulation and guidance and seek statutory authority to end all Housing First directives of Continuum of Care (CoC) grantees and contract homelessness providers in addition to establishing restrictions on local Housing First policies where HUD grant funds are used. 38. The U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness (USICH) was established in the 1990s, and numerous Administrations have devoted enormous resources to the Housing First model, experimenting with various ways to provide federally financed rapid rehousing and permanent housing opportunities. Housing First is a far-left idea premised on the belief that homelessness is primarily circumstantial rather than behavioral. The Housing First answer to homelessness is to give someone a house instead of attempting to understand the underlying causes of homelessness. Federal intervention centered on Housing First has failed to acknowledge that resolving the issue of homelessness is often a matter of resolving mental health and substance abuse challenges. Instead of the permanent supportive housing proffered by Housing First, a conservative Administration should shift to transitional housing with a focus on addressing the underlying issues that cause homelessness in the first place. 39. The Senate Low-Income First-Time Homebuyers (LIFT) Act would address this policy goal. See S. 2797, Low-Income First-Time Homebuyers Act of 2021 (LIFT Homebuyers Act of 2021), 117th Congress, introduced September 22, 2021, https://www.congress.gov/117/bills/s2797/BILLS-117s2797is.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023). 40. FHA did not facilitate the widespread use of 30-year mortgages until the 1950s when, interacting with Federal Reserve policies, federal agencies began broader adoption of the mortgages, which, despite lowering the monthly repayment terms, result in slow equity accumulation and wealth-building opportunities. 41. The Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 fundamentally revised the scope of federal regulation in the nation’s housing finance system, placing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac under the purview of a newly established Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) and establishing a Housing Trust Fund (HTF) that is administered in the HUD Office of Community Planning and Development. See H.R. 3221, Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008, Public Law No. 110-289, 110th Congress, July 30, 2008, https://www.congress. gov/110/plaws/publ289/PLAW-110publ289.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023). 42. Guiding questions: What reforms should be proposed that could be accomplished within five years? What reforms can be done administratively, and what reforms would need legislative authorization? Are there functions that HUD administers that could be achieved more effectively at another department or agency? What big-picture reforms should be proposed that might take more than five years that would reorganize HUD and its programs to meet the objectives in the vision or mission? What would occur in the absence of these public finance subsidies? How much crowd-out do these subsidies create in the market? Would America be a seriously underhoused nation without these subsidies? Who are the policies intended to benefit? What organizational changes must be made? 43. The Faircloth Amendment (Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998) amended the Housing Act of 1937 to maintain public housing units at 1999 levels, preventing housing authorities from maintaining more public housing than they did then. H.R. 4194, Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999, Public Law No. 105-276, 105th Congress, October 21, 1998, Title V, https://www.congress.gov/105/plaws/publ276/PLAW-105publ276.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023). In recent years, the statutory restriction on new construction of public housing units has been circumvented through some narrow uses of preservation programs such as the Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD) program, initially authorized in 2012 and reauthorized several times since under higher program unit conversion caps. Congress also provided paths for renewal and continuation of a portion of existing public housing; project/site-based housing stock (refinancing with long-term HAP contract commitments); and Section 8 units through the Multifamily Assisted Housing Reform and Affordability Act of 1997 (MAHRA). H.R. 2158, Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 1998, Public Law No. 105-65, 105th Congress, October 27, 1997, Title V, https://www.congress.gov/105/plaws/publ65/PLAW-105publ65.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023). 44. As the evolution of HUD rental assistance transitions away from the public housing model toward housing choice vouchers, there should be adequate landlord participation to ensure that the supply of housing units for rent in these programs meets the demand for rent among eligible tenants. This issue has been addressed in various ways, including by a task force instituted at the department during the Trump Administration, but could likely remain a challenge in the administration of the program.

Showing 3 of 5 policy matches

About These Correlations

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

Related Bills

Other Bills by Rep. Langworthy, Nicholas A.

Northern Border Security Enhancement and Review Act

119/hr/5517

American Quantum Competitiveness Act

119/hr/10163

Recycled Materials Attribution Act of 2026

119/hr/7502

Back to All Bills