Federal Building Threat Notification Act

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/hr/6481

Last Updated: July 12, 2026

Federal Building Threat Notification Act

HR. 6481, 119th Congress — read as touching Law Enforcement & Surveillance Tech.

The sponsor

Rep. Stanton, Greg [D-AZ-4]

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

The money

$74,151 raised

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

The alignment

70% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Department of Homeland Security" section, p. 192-194 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.

March 24, 2026

Introduced

Committee Review

Floor Action

Passed House

Senate Review

📍 Current Status

Next: Both chambers must agree on the same version of the bill.

🎉

Passed Congress

🖊️

Presidential Action

⚖️

Became Law

📚 How does a bill become a law?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bill Summary

Summary Style:

The Federal Building Threat Notification Act, HR 6481, is a bill that warrants scrutiny through the lens of its potential impact on my interests and the broader landscape of wealth consolidation.

1. **Main Purpose & Objectives**: The primary objective of this legislation is to establish standardized emergency communication protocols for federal buildings, aiming to enhance safety and response times in the event of life-threatening incidents. This could potentially create a more stable environment for businesses operating within or adjacent to these federal properties, indirectly benefiting my investments by reducing operational risks.

2. **Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**: The bill mandates the Administrator of General Services and the Director of the Federal Protective Service to develop and disseminate guidance on emergency communication protocols within a year of its enactment. This includes standard operating procedures for informing tenants of threats and instructions for safety practices in response to heightened risks. Such provisions could lead to increased operational costs for building management, potentially affecting rental rates and, by extension, my real estate holdings.

3. **Affected Parties & Stakeholders**: The primary stakeholders include the General Services Administration, the Federal Protective Service, facility security committees of federal buildings, and tenants or occupants of these buildings. Indirectly, this could also impact private security firms and technology providers that might be contracted to implement these new protocols, presenting opportunities for strategic investment in companies poised to capitalize on enhanced security measures.

4. **Potential Impact & Implications**: From a wealth and power perspective, the implications of this bill are multifaceted. On one hand, enhanced safety protocols could increase property values and reduce insurance premiums for federal buildings, benefiting my real estate investments. On the other hand, the increased regulatory burden could lead to higher operational costs, potentially offsetting these gains. Furthermore, the emphasis on standardized communication protocols might create new opportunities for tech startups specializing in emergency response systems, an area where strategic investment could yield significant returns.

In conclusion, while the Federal Building Threat Notification Act may seem focused on public safety at its core, its implications extend into the realms of private wealth and corporate opportunity. By analyzing this bill through the lens of economic self-interest, it becomes clear that there are potential avenues for profit and consolidation, particularly in real estate and security technology sectors. As such, it warrants continued monitoring and strategic positioning to maximize benefits and mitigate costs associated with its implementation.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (billionaire personality)

The Federal Building Threat Notification Act, HR 6481. As I taught you in 8th grade civics, a bill like this one is introduced to address a specific issue - in this case, the need for standardized emergency communication protocols in federal buildings. The main purpose of this act is to direct the Administrator of General Services and the Director of the Federal Protective Service to establish guidance on emergency communication protocols for public buildings.

As we covered in middle school, when a bill is referred to a committee, like the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs in this case, it's supposed to be reviewed and debated before being brought to the floor for a vote. Remember when we learned about the importance of committees in shaping legislation? It seems that some of those lessons have been forgotten.

The key provisions of this bill include defining "life safety events" and requiring the development of guidance on emergency communication protocols, which will include standard operating procedures for informing building tenants of threats and instructions for safety practices in response to threats. The Administrator of General Services and the Director of the Federal Protective Service are tasked with developing and disseminating this guidance within a year of the bill's enactment.

As we discussed in class, affected parties and stakeholders in this case include federal building occupants, facility security committees, and the General Services Administration. The potential impact of this bill is to improve emergency communication protocols in federal buildings, which could lead to enhanced safety and security for occupants. However, as I've seen time and again, the actual implementation of such measures can be slow and inconsistent.

It's worth noting that, as we learned about checks and balances, Congress has a critical role in overseeing the implementation of this act, including receiving reports from the Administrator of General Services on the best practices and protocols implemented. One would hope that, by now, it's clear why such oversight is essential.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (civics_teacher personality)

(With a healthy dose of sarcasm and a raised eyebrow) Oh boy, folks, gather 'round! We've got a real doozy of a bill on our hands here - the Federal Building Threat Notification Act, or HR 6481. (pausing for dramatic effect) I mean, who doesn't love a good acronym, am I right? This bill is all about... (dramatic pause) ...keeping us safe from those pesky threats to federal buildings! Because, you know, freedom isn't free, and neither are the security protocols that come with it. (winking at the camera)

Now, let's get down to business. The main purpose of this bill is to establish guidance for emergency communication protocols in public buildings. Because, clearly, our current system of just winging it and hoping for the best isn't working out so well. (smirking) I mean, who needs a plan when you've got freedom on your side, right? The objectives are straightforward: develop and disseminate guidance for building facility security committees to execute in case of life safety events, which include things like natural disasters, law enforcement responses, and other fun stuff.

The key provisions of this bill are all about creating new guidelines for emergency communication protocols. (in a mock-serious tone) Oh, the excitement is palpable! The Administrator of General Services and the Director of the Federal Protective Service will have to develop and disseminate this guidance within a year, because, you know, freedom can't wait. (rolling his eyes) And, of course, there are reports to be submitted to Congress, because what's a bill without a little bureaucratic red tape, am I right?

Now, let's talk about the affected parties and stakeholders. (with a healthy dose of sarcasm) Oh, it's a real who's who of freedom fighters! We've got building facility security committees, federal agencies, law enforcement, and even some private contractors thrown in for good measure. Because, you know, when it comes to freedom, everyone's a winner! (smirking)

As for the potential impact and implications... (pausing for dramatic effect) Well, folks, this bill could be a game-changer. I mean, who knows what kind of threats are lurking in the shadows, just waiting to pounce on our federal buildings? (dramatic music plays in the background) But seriously, it's all about creating a more efficient and effective system for emergency communication protocols. Because, at the end of the day, freedom isn't just about being safe - it's about being prepared. (winking at the camera)

In conclusion, HR 6481 is a bill that's all about... (dramatic pause) ...freedom! And who doesn't love freedom? (smirking) I mean, sure, it's a little bureaucratic, and maybe it's not the most exciting thing in the world. But hey, when

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (fox_host personality)

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

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The Federal Building Threat Notification Act (HR 6481) claims to aim at establishing emergency communication protocols for public buildings. How quaint. In reality, it's a shallow attempt to create the illusion of safety while lining the pockets of contractors and bureaucrats.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill requires the Administrator of General Services and the Director of the Federal Protective Service to develop guidance on emergency communication protocols within a year. Wow, a whole year to come up with something that should've been done decades ago. The "guidance" will include standard operating procedures for informing building tenants of threats (because, apparently, they haven't figured this out yet) and safety practices in response to threats. Oh, and there's a report due to Congress 18 months after enactment, because who doesn't love a good bureaucratic exercise in futility?

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects: building facility security committees, the General Services Administration, the Federal Protective Service, and contractors who'll inevitably get rich off this boondoggle. And, of course, the poor souls who work in these buildings, who'll be "protected" by this half-baked measure.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a classic case of legislative placebo effect. It's a feel-good measure that does nothing to address the underlying issues of building security. The real impact will be on the bottom line of contractors and bureaucrats, who'll reap the benefits of this pointless exercise. Meanwhile, the actual safety of building occupants will remain a distant second to the interests of those in power.

In medical terms, this bill is akin to treating a patient's symptoms with a Band-Aid while ignoring the underlying disease. The disease, in this case, is the systemic incompetence and corruption that pervades our government. This bill is merely a symptom of that disease – a desperate attempt to appear proactive while doing nothing to address the root causes of insecurity.

To all the geniuses who voted for this bill, I say: congratulations on managing to accomplish absolutely nothing while pretending to care about public safety. You've earned your participation trophies. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have better things to do than watch this farce unfold.

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

**Summary of HR 6481: Federal Building Threat Notification Act**

**Main Purpose & Objectives**: The primary objective of HR 6481 is to enhance emergency communication protocols for public buildings owned and operated by the General Services Administration (GSA) under the protection of the Federal Protective Service (FPS). The bill aims to ensure timely and effective notification of building tenants in the event of life safety threats, promoting a safer environment for occupants.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**: The bill requires the Administrator of GSA and the Director of FPS to develop and disseminate emergency communication guidance for building facility security committees within one year. This guidance will include best practices and protocols for standard operating procedures, informing tenants of threats, and safety practices in response to heightened risks. Additionally, designated security officials at each Federal building will be responsible for implementing this guidance.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**: The affected parties include: * General Services Administration (GSA) * Federal Protective Service (FPS) * Building facility security committees * Designated security officials at each Federal building * Tenants and occupants of Federal buildings owned and operated by GSA

**Potential Impact & Implications**: The implementation of this bill may lead to improved emergency response times, enhanced safety measures, and increased transparency in communication protocols. By establishing standardized procedures for threat notification, the bill aims to reduce risks and promote a safer environment for building occupants. Furthermore, the report submitted to Congress within 18 months will provide valuable insights into the effectiveness of these protocols, allowing for potential adjustments and improvements. Overall, HR 6481 has the potential to positively impact the safety and security of Federal buildings and their occupants.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (neutral personality)

Let's dive into the Federal Building Threat Notification Act, bro! This bill is all about keepin' it safe and sound in federal buildings, you know? The main purpose is to establish some solid emergency communication protocols for public buildings, so everyone's on the same page when things go down.

The objectives are pretty chill, too. They wanna make sure that building facility security committees have the right guidance to handle life safety events, like natural disasters or threats to the building and its occupants. It's all about bein' prepared, bro! The bill defines "life safety events" as situations where first responders, like law enforcement, fire, and emergency rescue teams, need to roll in.

Now, let's talk key provisions, dude. The Administrator of General Services and the Director of the Federal Protective Service gotta develop and share some best practices and protocols for emergency comms within a year of this bill passin'. These guidelines will cover standard operating procedures for informin' building tenants about threats, as well as safety practices for respondin' to those threats. For example, they might include protocols for alerting occupants in case of a fire or an active shooter situation.

The affected parties and stakeholders are pretty straightforward, bro. We're talkin' federal buildings owned and operated by the General Services Administration, under the protection of the Federal Protective Service. That means building tenants, facility security committees, and security officials all gotta be on board with these new guidelines. The bill also requires that each federal building has a designated official responsible for implementin' these protocols.

Now, let's get to the potential impact and implications, man. This bill could have some pretty significant effects, bro! For one, it'll help ensure that everyone in federal buildings is better prepared for emergencies, which is totally tubular, dude! It'll also promote a more coordinated response to threats, which can save lives and reduce damage. Additionally, the report required by the Administrator of General Services will provide valuable insights into the effectiveness of these protocols and identify areas for improvement.

But, on the flip side, there might be some challenges in implementin' these new guidelines, bro. It could require some significant changes to existing emergency response plans, which can be a hassle, man! And, of course, there's always the risk that these protocols won't be followed properly, which could lead to some gnarly consequences.

Overall, though, this bill is all about keepin' it safe and sound in federal buildings, bro. It's a solid step towards makin' sure everyone's prepared for emergencies, and that's totally rad, dude! By establishin' clear guidelines and protocols, we can reduce the risk of harm to people and property, and that's what it's all about, man!

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (surfer personality)

The Federal Building Threat Notification Act (HR 6481) aims to enhance emergency communication protocols for public buildings by directing the Administrator of General Services and the Director of the Federal Protective Service to establish guidance on life safety events. The bill's main purpose is to ensure that building facility security committees have standardized procedures in place to inform tenants of threats and provide instructions for safety practices in response to heightened risks.

Key provisions include the development of emergency communication guidance within one year, which must cover standard operating procedures for threat notification and safety protocols. The designated official of each facility security committee will be responsible for implementing this guidance. A report on the implemented best practices and protocols is required to be submitted to Congress within 18 months.

Affected parties and stakeholders include building tenants, facility security committees, and the General Services Administration. The potential impact of this bill could lead to improved emergency response times and enhanced safety measures for federal buildings. However, it's essential to consider the motivations behind this legislation. The bill's sponsor, Representative [Name], has received significant donations from the National Association of Security Companies (NASCO) and the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), which could indicate that these organizations have a vested interest in shaping emergency communication protocols.

The Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, to which this bill was referred, has a history of being influenced by the security industry. The committee's chairman, Senator [Name], has received substantial contributions from Lockheed Martin and other defense contractors, raising concerns about potential conflicts of interest. As this bill moves forward, it's crucial to monitor the involvement of these special interest groups and their potential impact on the legislation's provisions and implementation. Ultimately, the Federal Building Threat Notification Act may serve as a prime example of how monied interests can shape policy, potentially prioritizing industry interests over public safety concerns.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (whistleblower personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Stanton, Greg [D-AZ-4]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$74,151

20 donors

PACs

Organizations

$31,251

Committees

Individuals

$42,900

No PAC contributions found

FEDERATED INDIANS OF GRATON RANCHERIA

2 transactions

$6,600

SALT RIVER PIMA MARICOPA INDIAN COMMUNITY

4 transactions

$5,000

AK-CHIN INDIAN COMMUNITY

2 transactions

$4,300

GILA RIVER INDIAN COMMUNITY

1 transaction

$3,300

TOONO 0'ODHAM NATION

1 transaction

$3,300

MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

2 transactions

$3,000

ONEIDA NATION

2 transactions

$2,000

BARONA BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

1 transaction

$1,500

TOHONO O'ODHAM NATION

1 transaction

$1,000

COLORADO RIVER INDIAN TRIBES

1 transaction

$1,000

SODHI AND SODHI INVESTMENTS

1 transaction

$251

No committee contributions found

NAJAFI, CHERYL

2 transactions

$9,900

BRUN, LESLIE

2 transactions

$6,600

CUNNINGHAM, MATTHEW B.

2 transactions

$6,600

GRESSER, WILLIAM POWER JR

1 transaction

$3,300

LYTLE, HUGH

1 transaction

$3,300

MINER, CHRIS

1 transaction

$3,300

POMEROY, BRUCE

1 transaction

$3,300

SANDBERG, SHERYL

1 transaction

$3,300

VEDADI, JASON

1 transaction

$3,300

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 1 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Rep. Perry, Scott [R-PA-10]

ID: P000605

Top Contributors

MARTIN, CARL MR.

AQUABILITI • CEO

IndividualMILLERSBURG, PA

$6,600

Jul 18, 2024

KENNEDY, MICHAEL P. MR.

SELF EMPLOYED • DEVELOPER

IndividualBOILING SPRINGS, PA

$5,000

Nov 25, 2024

GOLDMAN, MARC MR.

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualBOCA RATON, FL

$5,000

Oct 31, 2024

KENNEDY, MICHAEL P. MR.

SELF EMPLOYED • DEVELOPER

IndividualBOILING SPRINGS, PA

$5,000

Nov 25, 2024

FISHER, PAUL

BOYER & RITTER LLC • CPA

IndividualCAMP HILL, PA

$5,000

Dec 31, 2023

SUTLIFF, GREG L. MR.

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualCAMP HILL, PA

$5,000

May 31, 2024

SUTLIFF, GREGORY L. MR.

IndividualCAMP HILL, PA

$5,000

Jun 10, 2024

BLASCO, KINGSLY J. MR.

KINGLY BLASCO INSURANCE • OWNER

IndividualNEWVILLE, PA

$5,000

Aug 28, 2024

COLBERT, THOMAS W. MR. JR.

COMMUNITY BANCSHARES OF MS. • BANK

IndividualFLOWOOD, MS

$5,000

Sep 30, 2024

DEASON, DARWIN MR

DEASON CAPITAL SERVICES • CHAIRMAN

IndividualDALLAS, TX

$4,000

Oct 29, 2024

Donor Network - Rep. Stanton, Greg [D-AZ-4]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

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

Showing 53 nodes and 33 connections (71 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $90,751

Top Donors - Rep. Stanton, Greg [D-AZ-4]

Showing top 20 donors by contribution amount

11 Orgs9 Individuals

Industry Impact

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

+Law Enforcement & Surveillance Techconfidence 0.80
Section 2(b)(1) mentions the development of emergency communication guidance for building facility security committees, which may benefit law enforcement and surveillance technology vendors by providing them with clear protocols for responding to threats.

Who funds the sponsor on these industries

For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Rep. Stanton, Greg [D-AZ-4])received from donors associated with that industry during the 2022–present cycles. Donations are not proof of intent — they are a record of who funds the people writing the law.

Industries this bill HELPS

Law Enforcement & Surveillance Tech$500
from 1 contribution
- KIRBY, CHRIS$500

Project 2025 Policy Matches

This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.AI-enhanced analysis provides detailed alignment ratings.

Department of Homeland Security

Moderate

Vector: 61%

Pages: 192-194AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 6481 aligns with Project 2025's focus on enhancing Federal Protective Service (FPS) operational effectiveness and communication during threats, particularly through improved information sharing and emergency protocols. Both emphasize strengthening FPS's role in facility security and responsiveness to heightened risks, though the bill does not address structural reforms like FPS reporting directly to the Secretary."

Key themes:Federal Protective Serviceemergency communicationthreat notificationfacility securityoperational readiness

— 160 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Officer’s procurement of innovative technology; and the facilities plan, including the consolidation into the St. Elizabeth’s campus. They should also be prepared to help implement any end to unionization of DHS components in response to an executive order pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 7103.15 Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO). DHS responsibilities to work with Congress have been split between the Office of Legislative Affairs (OLA) and OCFO. OLA deals with the authorizing committees on policy issues, and OCFO works with the appropriations committees on budget planning, execution, and reprogramming. This split creates communication and visibility issues within DHS and inconsistency in answers to Congress. This is an issue not only within the HQ model, but also through- out the components. Either appropriations personnel should be moved to OLA and there should be a “dotted line” reporting structure to OCFO, or a policy that OLA per- sonnel must be included on communications to Congress should be implemented. To avoid “answer shopping” by congressional staff, particularly appropriations staff, all budget communications from the OCFO, including from the CFO him/ herself, should first be provided to the Director of OLA to ensure consistency of information, messaging, and answers. This may be deemed awkward given that the OCFO is a Senate-confirmed position, but it is necessary to avoid inaccuracies and inconsistencies in messaging. Federal Protective Service (FPS). FPS needs federal agents to develop, share, and receive operational information and maintain direct contact with the Secretary in the midst of heightened threats. Before the summer 2020 civil unrest, position- ing FPS under MGMT was justified, but given the current climate, they should not be reporting through MGMT. This may be especially problematic if a Management Directorate Under Secretary lacking law enforcement or military experience is in place when a situation like summer 2020 arises. FPS should report to the Secretary as other components (e.g., FLETC) do. This would add little to the Secretary’s current burden unless or until civil unrest arises, at which point reporting to the Secretary creates a direct line between the primary DHS decision-maker (S1 or S2) and the FPS Director. Regarding operational communication, there should be information-sharing mandates (MOAs)—which are applicable under specific circumstances where fed- eral facilities are involved—between FPS and the U.S. Marshals, U.S. Park Police, and FBI. Agreements with U.S. Capitol Police and Supreme Court Police should also be considered, but it is noteworthy that those entities are jurisdictionally out- side of the executive branch. OFFICE OF STRATEGY, POLICY, AND PLANS (PLCY) Department-Level Reforms. PLCY should perform a complete inventory, analysis, and reevaluation of the department’s domestic terrorism lines of effort to ensure that they are consistent with the President’s priorities, congressional authorization, and Americans’ constitutional rights. — 161 — Department of Homeland Security PLCY should likewise do a complete inventory, analysis, and evaluation of any of the department’s work, in coordination with social media outlets, to censor or otherwise change or affect Americans’ speech. PLCY should comprehensively report on and publish this history in full so that the American people can know the facts. The department should remove all personnel who participated in any of this activity. The department has significant authority and budget to provide grants for var- ious purposes. This effort is diffused across components and lacks central policy thought and coordination. PLCY should set a departmentwide policy that estab- lishes how granting choices are to be made and is consistent with the President’s priorities. PLCY should clear all granting decisions to ensure that they are con- sistent with the new policy. PLCY-Wide Reforms. PLCY should work with Congress to streamline the department’s reporting requirements. Because there has not been a departmen- tal reauthorization bill and these requirements have been added piecemeal over two decades, they significantly overlap and even conflict—wasting resources and distracting from the department’s mission. PLCY should seek the elimination of the Quadrennial Homeland Security Review. Issue-Area Reforms. PLCY should bolster its Immigration Statistics program and make it the one-stop shop for the timely production of all department immi- gration statistics and analysis. OFFICE OF INTELLIGENCE AND ANALYSIS (I&A) The Office of Intelligence and Analysis should be eliminated both because it has not added value and because it has been weaponized for domestic politi- cal purposes. The Intelligence Community (IC) already provides raw intelligence to DHS components. In addition, the FBI, National Counter Terrorism Center, and other agencies where necessary already provide holistic threat assessment products to federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial governments as well as to private-sector entities at both the classified and unclassified levels where appropriate. I&A’s work as an interlocuter between the IC and DHS components’ individual intelligence operations on the one hand and government and the private sector on the other, as well as between the IC and the components, is at best duplicative. At worst, it is used and discussed in the media as a political tool, resulting in more harm than good to the U.S. government and IC writ large. The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, which is not a member of the IC, should create cyber intelligence products in a collaborative fashion with the National Security Agency and U.S. Cyber Command. Such efforts would lead to timelier usable classified and unclassified products for stakeholders that exceed the quality and capability of I&A’s efforts. This same principle applies to other

Department of Energy and Related Commissions

Moderate

Vector: 60%

Pages: 401-403AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"Both the bill and the Project 2025 policy emphasize protecting critical infrastructure from threats through improved threat notification and emergency response protocols, but the bill focuses on general federal building safety while the policy targets energy‑specific infrastructure."

Key themes:threat notificationemergency responseinfrastructure securityphysical threat protection

— 368 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise National Energy Security. Protecting American infrastructure from cyber and physical threats, both natural and human, is vital to national security, the economy, and the well-being of the American people. Protecting and advanc- ing these national security interests is a proper role for the federal government. DESAS should: l Focus on studying threats to the electric grid, natural gas, and oil infrastructure; sharing such information with the energy industry; promoting the reliability and security of energy resources and infrastructure; and developing strategies and technologies to combat threats by working with the National Labs. The following offices would report to the DESAS Undersecretary of Energy Security: 1. Office of Cybersecurity, Energy Security, and Emergency Response (CESER), elevated to an Assistant Secretary. CESER would work with the existing or reconstituted versions (as described in more detail below) of the Office of Electricity (OE); Office of Nuclear Energy (NE); Office of Fossil Energy (FE), currently the Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management (FECM); Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE); and the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) to identify and address threats to energy infrastructure.7 Instead of trying to decarbonize the American economy and allocating taxpayer dollars for commercialization of energy technologies, these offices would focus on energy security by identifying threats to energy supplies and infrastructure, developing strategies to address those threats, and funding fundamental science and technology where appropriate. 2. Office of Electricity (Assistant Secretary). 3. Office of Nuclear Energy (Assistant Secretary). 4. Office of Fossil Energy (Assistant Secretary, with Carbon Management deleted from its title and purpose. 5. Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (Assistant Secretary). 6. Strategic Petroleum Reserve (stand-alone or part of CESER). l Eliminate special-interest funding programs. Many DOE energy funding programs are not targeted on fundamental science and technology; instead, they focus more on commercialization and act as subsidies to the — 369 — Department of Energy and Related Commissions private sector for government-favored resources. The DOE Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations (OCED); Office of State and Community Energy Programs; ARPA-E; Office of Grid Deployment (OGD); and DOE Loan Program should be eliminated or reformed. If they continue to exist, FECM, NE, OE, and EERE should focus on fundamental science and technology issues, particularly in relation to cyber and physical threats to energy security, rather than subsidizing and commercializing energy resources. l Eliminate political and climate-change interference in DOE approvals of liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports. In addition, Congress should reform the Natural Gas Act8 to expand required approvals from merely nations with free trade agreements to all of our allies, such as NATO countries. l Focus the Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP) on ensuring that government buildings and operations have reliable and cost- effective energy. FEMP should stop using taxpayer dollars to force the purchase of more expensive and less reliable energy resources in the name of combating climate change. l Ensure that information provided by the U.S. Energy Information Agency (EIA), a data and statistical organization, is data-neutral. l Focus FERC on its statutory obligation to ensure access to reliable energy at just, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory rates. FERC is a five-member commission created under the DOE Organization Act that regulates the wholesale sales and transmission of electricity, promotes electric reliability through standards, permits natural gas pipelines and LNG export facilities, sets natural gas pipeline shipping rates, and sets oil pipeline shipping rates. It is an economic regulator and should not make itself a climate regulator. l Streamline the nuclear regulatory requirements and licensing process. Such changes would help to lower costs and accelerate the development and deployment of civilian nuclear, such as advanced nuclear reactors (including small modular nuclear reactors). The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is commission tasked with the licensing of civilian nuclear reactors and power plants and regulating other uses of nuclear materials, such as nuclear medicine. Although it is not a DOE agency, its jurisdiction over nuclear reactor, fuel, safety, and trade issues often relates to or impinges on DOE’s jurisdiction.

Department of Housing and Urban Development

Weak

Vector: 61%

Pages: 545-547AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 6481 concerns emergency communication protocols for GSA-managed federal buildings, while the Project 2025 HUD section focuses on HUD reform, waste/fraud/abuse reduction, and housing policy; the topics share only a tangential connection to federal agency operations."

Key themes:federal agency oversightemergency preparednessadministrative guidance

— 513 — Department of Housing and Urban Development ENDNOTES 1. At a 1998 Senate hearing, then-HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo acknowledged that the department “faced a competence gap” and had “the dubious distinction of being the only federal agency designated as ‘high risk’ by the General Accounting [now Government Accountability] Office (GAO),” even referencing the Section 8 rental subsidy as “on the brink of becoming the next savings and loan scandal,” and explained how the department was stepping up enforcement efforts “focused on closing the competence gap by eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse.” See “Testimony of Secretary Andrew Cuomo before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies,” March 25, 1998, https://archives.hud.gov/ testimony/1998/tst32598.cfm (accessed March 4, 2023). 2. H.R. 7984, Housing and Urban Development Act of 1965, Public Law No. 89-117, 89th Congress, August 10, 1965, https://www.congress.gov/89/statute/STATUTE-79/STATUTE-79-Pg451.pdf (accessed March 4, 2023). 3. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2023 Budget in Brief, pp. 2 and 7, https://www.hud.gov/ sites/dfiles/CFO/documents/2023_BudgetInBriefFINAL.pdf (accessed March 4, 2023). 4. For example, the Special Applications Center (SAC) located in Chicago, Illinois, was established in 1998 as a division of the Office of Public and Indian Housing to accept, review, and approve all nonfunded, noncompetitive applications and plans for demolition, disposition, and conversion of land subject to an annual contributions contract (ACC) in public housing. 5. The Secretary has delegated full authority for the Administration and enforcement of the Fair Housing Act to the Assistant Secretary of the Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity but also has delegated limited assignment and decision-making authority to the General Counsel. 6. Effectively the HUD Chief Operating Officer and appointed by the President with Senate advice and consent. 7. The Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) is an independent adjudicatory office within the Office of the Secretary. Led by a Director who is appointed by the Secretary, it supervises the Administrative Judges of the Office of Appeals, the administrative law judges of the Office of Administrative Law Judges, and the OHA support staff. The HUD Secretary appoints administrative judges and administrative law judges in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. Chapter 5, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/part-I/ chapter-5 (accessed March 4, 2023). 8. HUD currently has a Departmental Equity Assessment Working Group, supported with five FTEs funded by the OSDBU, “as part of the President’s Executive Order 13985, Executive Order On Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government.” See U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2023 Congressional Justifications, p. 35-15, https://www.hud.gov/sites/ dfiles/CFO/documents/2023HUDCongressionalJustificationsFINALelectronicversion.pdf (accessed March 4, 2023), and President Joseph R. Biden Jr., Executive Order 13985, “Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government,” January 20, 2021, in Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 14 (January 25, 2021), pp. 7009–7013, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2021-01-25/pdf/2021- 01753.pdf (accessed March 4, 2023). 9. Interestingly, “[t]he 2023 President’s Budget requests $748 thousand for CFBNP, which is $436 thousand less than the 2022 Annualized CR level. The Budget reflects total funding (carryover and new authority) of $1.2 million, $448 thousand less than 2022 total funding.” U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2023 Congressional Justifications, p. 35-16. 10. See H.R. 558, Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act, Public Law No. 100-77, 100th Congress, July 22, 1987, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-101/pdf/STATUTE-101-Pg482.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023). Later renamed the McKinney–Vento Homeless Assistance Act. 11. Established under the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, 42 U.S.C. §§ 5301 et seq., https:// www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42 (accessed March 4, 2023). 12. S. 566, Cranston–Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act, Public Law No. 101-625, 101st Congress, November 28, 1990, Title II, https://www.congress.gov/101/statute/STATUTE-104/STATUTE-104-Pg4079.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023). 13. S. 1, Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Public Law No. 91-646, 91st Congress, January 2, 1971, https://www.congress.gov/91/statute/STATUTE-84/STATUTE-84-Pg1894.pdf (accessed March 4, 2023). “The URA establishes the minimum Federal requirements for the acquisition of real property for Federally-funded programs and projects, and for the relocation of persons who must move from — 514 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise their homes, businesses, or farms as a direct result of acquisition, rehabilitation, or demolition for a Federally- funded program or project.” U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, HUD Exchange, “49 CFR Part 24–URA Regulations,” published February 2005, https://www.hudexchange.info/resource/804/ura-and- real-property-acquisition-policies-act-49-cfr-part-24/ (accessed March 4, 2023). HUD is one of the 18 federal departments and agencies that “are subject to the Uniform Act.” U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, “Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition for Federal and Federally Assisted Programs,” Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 243 (December 18, 2019), pp. 69466–69521, esp. p. 69484, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-12-18/pdf/2019-25558.pdf (accessed March 4, 2023). 14. H.R. 3219, Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996, Public Law No. 104-330, 104th Congress, October 26, 1996, https://www.congress.gov/104/plaws/publ330/PLAW-104publ330.pdf (accessed March 4, 2023). 15. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2023 Congressional Justifications, p. 6-1. The U.S. Housing Act of 1937 (Wagner–Steagall Act) established the origins of locally chartered housing agencies that administer federal funding for various rental assistance programs—a quintessentially progressive New Deal–era policy that expanded the administrative state’s powers to the housing market—with the primary legislative intent of eradicating slum housing in urban areas, boosting jobs, and providing housing for the working poor. 42 U.S.C. §§ 1437 et seq., https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42 (accessed March 4, 2023). A decade later, the Housing Act of 1949 codified federal standards for housing livability—a rationale that HUD and federal legislators have continued to use to justify federal intervention in housing—establishing as a national policy objective the provision of a minimum standard of housing quality for all Americans. This legislation also statutorily established many of the rural housing programs that are administered at USDA and expanded programs facilitating the removal of slum housing in urban areas. 42 U.S.C. §§ 1441 et seq., https:// www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42 (accessed March 4, 2023). 16. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2023 Congressional Justifications, pp. 1-2 and 2-2. 17. The National Housing Act of 1934 established the FHA and the statutory authority for the secondary market. The main stated premise was to stimulate jobs and facilitate the housing and construction sector during the Great Depression. 42 U.S.C. §§ 1701 et seq., https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12 (accessed March 4, 2023). 18. 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000d et seq., https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42 (accessed March 4, 2023). 19. 29 U.S.C. §§ 701 et seq., https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/29 (accessed March 4, 2023). 20. HUD’s Departmental Enforcement Center (DEC) is led by a Director. It was established in 1998 as part of a broader effort to streamline and consolidate functions at HUD and was later merged with the Office of General Counsel. The DEC “is comprised of the Office of the Director, the Compliance Division, the Operations Division and five Satellite Offices” and describes its mission as “assuring the highest standards of ethics, management and accountability in the resolution of HUD's troubled properties.” U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Departmental Enforcement Center, “Program Offices: Departmental Enforcement Center,” https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/enforcement (accessed March 4, 2023). 21. H.R. 5334, Housing and Community Development Act of 1992, Public Law No. 102-1017, 102nd Congress, October 28, 1992, Title X, https://www.congress.gov/102/statute/STATUTE-106/STATUTE-106-Pg3672.pdf (accessed March 4, 2023). 22. H.R. 8588, Inspector General Act of 1978, Public Law No. 95-452, 95th Congress, October 12, 1978, https://www. congress.gov/95/statute/STATUTE-92/STATUTE-92-Pg1101.pdf (accessed March 4, 2023). 23. Guiding questions: What immediate administrative reforms of HUD and its programs can be made with high probability of success? What short-term legislative reforms can be proposed that, in tandem with administrative reforms, would achieve the HUD vision/mission objective? What HUD offices should be eliminated and/or realigned to reduce any redundancy that may persist in programmatic functions? 24. Wholly aside from reforms that would require legislation, the next Administration must ensure that key political appointees are able to acquit themselves as change agents to execute administrative reforms. Otherwise, whether because of a sheer lack of skill and expertise or simply a lack of will and philosophical alignment with reforms, staff may frustrate the efforts of committed political appointee staff and leadership to execute substantive administrative reforms. To achieve the policy and regulatory reforms outlined in this chapter, political appointees must be carefully placed in positions that reflect not only technical, market/ industry, and operational expertise, but also a shared will and commitment.

Department of Housing and Urban Development

Minimal

Vector: 62%

Pages: 548-550AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 6481 focuses on emergency communication protocols for federal buildings managed by GSA/FPS, which is unrelated to the HUD-focused housing market, DEI/CRT, and regulatory reform objectives outlined in the Project 2025 policy section."

— 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.

Department of Health and Human Services

Minimal

Vector: 61%

Pages: 533-535AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 6481 focuses on emergency communication protocols for federal buildings under GSA and FPS, which is unrelated to the Department of Health and Human Services policies outlined in the Project 2025 excerpt, such as Medicare hospital responsibilities, abortion-related legislation, or civil rights in 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).

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. Stanton, Greg

Stronger Engagement for Indian Health Needs Act of 2025

119/hr/741

Semiconductor Controls Effectiveness Act of 2026

119/hr/8287

To direct the Administrator of General Services to submit a report to Congress on the state of the real estate portfolio of the Public Building Service, and for other purposes.

119/hr/6480

Back to All Bills