To designate the Christiansted Bandstand at the Christiansted National Historic Site, St. Croix, Virgin Islands, as the "Peter G. Thurland, Sr., Bandstand".

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/hr/8121

Last Updated: September 15, 2026

To designate the Christiansted Bandstand at the Christiansted National Historic Site, St. Croix, Virgin Islands, as the "Peter G. Thurland, Sr., Bandstand".

HR. 8121, 119th Congress.

The sponsor

Del. Plaskett, Stacey E. [D-VI-At Large]

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

The money

$73,600 raised

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

The alignment

40% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Department of Agriculture" section, p. 344-346 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 Energy and Natural Resources.

September 14, 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:

**Summary of H.R. 8121: Designation of the Peter G. Thurland, Sr., Bandstand**

**1. Main Purpose & Objectives** The sole purpose of H.R. 8121 is to rename the Christiansted Bandstand within the Christiansted National Historic Site on St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands, in honor of Peter G. Thurland, Sr. This is a symbolic, commemorative act with no substantive policy, regulatory, or fiscal implications. The objective is to formally recognize an individual—presumably a local cultural or civic figure—through federal nomenclature, leveraging the symbolic authority of the U.S. government to confer legacy and prestige.

**2. Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The bill contains two operative sections: - **Section 1** mandates that the bandstand be officially designated as the “Peter G. Thurland, Sr., Bandstand.” - **Section 2** stipulates that all existing and future references to the bandstand in federal laws, regulations, documents, records, maps, or papers shall be deemed to refer to the renamed structure.

This creates a nominal legal update with zero functional impact on governance, land use, funding, or operational authority. The Christiansted National Historic Site remains under the jurisdiction of the National Park Service; no transfer of control, budgetary allocation, or regulatory shift occurs. The change is purely nominal—akin to updating a label in a database.

**3. Affected Parties & Stakeholders** - **Directly Affected:** The family and legacy of Peter G. Thurland, Sr., who gain posthumous recognition; local Virgin Islands communities that may view the renaming as a point of cultural pride. - **Indirectly Affected:** Federal agencies (primarily the National Park Service) must update signage, maps, databases, and interpretive materials—an administrative task of minimal cost and effort. - **Unaffected:** Taxpayers, businesses, investors, or interstate commerce. No permits, fees, zoning rules, or environmental regulations are altered. The bill does not touch upon energy, finance, technology, or any sector relevant to wealth generation or market dynamics.

**4. Potential Impact & Implications** - **Wealth & Power Implications:** None. The bill generates no economic value, creates no market opportunities, imposes no costs, and alters no power structures beyond symbolic recognition. It is a de minimis legislative act—akin to naming a post office or a federal building after a constituent. - **Regulatory Impact:** Zero. No deregulation occurs; no red tape is cut. The bill adds a trivial layer of administrative nomenclature but imposes no burden on private enterprise or federal operations. - **Democratic Efficiency:** While the bill reflects constituent service—a core, if inefficient, function of representative democracy—it exemplifies the kind of low-stakes, high-visibility legislation that consumes congressional time without advancing systemic goals. From a libertarian-rationalist perspective, such acts are harmless but reveal the opportunistic use of federal power for localized patronage, albeit in its most benign form. - **Broader Implication:** The bill underscores how federal authority can be exercised for symbolic, non-transformative purposes. It poses no threat to oligarchic interests, nor does it advance them. It is, in essence, a rounding error in the machinery of governance—harmless, forgettable, and utterly irrelevant to the calculus of wealth, influence, or control.

In sum: a ceremonial rename with no material consequence. A footnote in the Congressional Record, not a lever of power.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (billionaire personality)

Main Purpose & Objectives: The sole purpose of H.R. 8121 is to rename the Christiansted Bandstand at the Christiansted National Historic Site in St. Croix, Virgin Islands, in honor of Peter G. Thurland, Sr. This is a ceremonial designation intended to recognize an individual's contributions, likely to the local community, cultural heritage, or historic preservation efforts in the Virgin Islands. The bill seeks to formalize this name change through federal legislation so that the new name carries official standing in all federal contexts.

Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law: The bill contains two short sections. Section 1 formally redesignates the "Christiansted Bandstand" as the "Peter G. Thurland, Sr., Bandstand" for all purposes. Section 2 mandates that any reference to the bandstand in existing federal laws, regulations, documents, records, maps, or other official papers shall be interpreted as a reference to the new name. This ensures consistency across federal records without requiring individual amendments to each document. Notably, the bill does not allocate funding, alter management responsibilities, or change the operational status of the historic site—it is purely a nominal change.

Affected Parties & Stakeholders: The primary affected party is the National Park Service, which administers the Christiansted National Historic Site and will need to update signage, maps, brochures, and official records. Local Virgin Islands officials and community members, particularly those associated with Peter G. Thurland, Sr., are stakeholders in the recognition. Federal agencies that reference the site in legal or administrative documents will see automatic updates via Section 2. The general public visiting the site will encounter the new name. No regulatory burdens, financial costs, or jurisdictional changes are imposed on private entities or state/local governments beyond administrative updates.

Potential Impact & Implications: The impact is largely symbolic and commemorative. The bill honors an individual’s legacy, potentially fostering community pride and historical awareness in the Virgin Islands. Operationally, there is minimal disruption—name changes of this nature are routine in congressional practice and typically incur only minor administrative costs for updating materials. There are no broader policy implications, as the bill does not affect land use, funding, visitor access, or historic preservation mandates. Its passage reflects Congress’s role in recognizing local figures through symbolic federal gestures, a function that, while uncontroversial, consumes legislative time that could be directed toward more substantive matters—a point that, frankly, we *did* cover in 8th grade civics when discussing the types of bills Congress actually *should* be prioritizing.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (civics_teacher personality)

**Conspiracy Uncle’s Breakdown of HR 8121: The Bandstand That Whispers Secrets**

Alright, folks, gather ’round the turkey and pass the giblets—because what looks like a simple tribute to a local bandleader in St. Croix is *obviously* a deep-state maneuver disguised as patriotism and park renaming. HR 8121? More like *Hidden Resolution 8121*—and I’ve got the red string and corkboard ready.

**1. Main Purpose & Objectives** On the surface: rename a bandstand at the Christiansted National Historic Site after Peter G. Thurland, Sr., a presumably beloved Virgin Islands musician or civic figure. Nice, right? Honor local culture, celebrate heritage—*yawn*. But why now? Why *this* bandstand? And why does it require *two* sections to rename a gazebo with a roof? Section 1 does the naming. Section 2? That’s where the *real* magic happens: it mandates that *every* federal reference—laws, maps, documents, even the lint in a park ranger’s pocket—must now reflect the new name. Overkill? Or a dry run for systemic rebranding?

**2. Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** This bill doesn’t just rename a structure—it retroactively rewrites history. Section 2 is the kicker: it doesn’t just say “going forward, call it this.” It says *any existing reference* in *any* U.S. government paper is *deemed* to be the new name. That’s not renaming—it’s *historical overwriting*. Imagine: a 1980s NPS memo mentioning the “Christiansted Bandstand”? Now, by federal decree, it’s *always* been the “Peter G. Thurland, Sr., Bandstand.” Time travel via bureaucracy. Who else gets this treatment? What other monuments are next in line for a stealth identity swap?

**3. Affected Parties & Stakeholders** Officially: the National Park Service, Virgin Islanders, tourists, and Peter G. Thurland’s family (bless their hearts). Unofficially: *every* historian who ever cited the old name now risks being “misinformed.” Mapmakers? Forced to pulping old charts. Archivists? Suddenly working in a Ministry of Truth scenario. And let’s not ignore the *symbolism*: a bandstand—where music, assembly, and free expression happen—is being renamed under federal mandate. Coincidence? I think not. Music controls the soul. Rename the stage, control the song.

**4. Potential Impact & Implications** This sets a terrifying precedent. If Congress can rename a bandstand and declare all past references null and void via legislative fiat, what’s to stop them from doing it to buildings, parks, or even *events*? “The January 6th Rally Site” becomes “The Patriot Unity Pavilion” by 2028, and suddenly, your memory is wrong. Worse: it federalizes local honor. Why does Congress need to weigh in on a Virgin Islands bandstand? Unless… unless Peter G. Thurland, Sr. wasn’t just a musician. Maybe he knew something. Maybe his music carried frequencies that disrupt mind-control satellites. Maybe the bandstand sits on a ley line. Or maybe—just maybe—this is a test run for renaming *everything* after approved figures. Wake up, sheeple. The bandstand is watching. And now, it’s got a new name.

*Pass the cranberry sauce. I think the gravy’s been altered.*

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (conspiracy_uncle personality)

**Summary of H.R. 8121: To Designate the Christiansted Bandstand as the "Peter G. Thurland, Sr., Bandstand"**

**1. Main Purpose & Objectives** The primary purpose of H.R. 8121 is to formally rename the Christiansted Bandstand at the Christiansted National Historic Site in St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands, in honor of Peter G. Thurland, Sr. The bill seeks to recognize Thurland’s contributions—presumably to local culture, music, or community life—by enshrining his name on a public landmark. While the bill does not specify Thurland’s exact achievements, the act functions as a symbolic tribute, aligning with a longstanding congressional practice of honoring individuals through the naming of federal sites. The objective is straightforward: to preserve local heritage and celebrate a figure deemed worthy of remembrance by renaming an existing structure without altering its function or access.

**2. Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The bill contains two operative sections. Section 1 mandates that the bandstand currently known as the “Christiansted Bandstand” be officially designated as the “Peter G. Thurland, Sr., Bandstand.” Section 2 ensures legal continuity by stipulating that any reference to the bandstand in federal laws, regulations, documents, records, maps, or other official papers shall be interpreted as a reference to its new name. This provision prevents confusion in administrative and legal contexts. Notably, the bill does not allocate funding, impose new regulations, or alter the management of the site—it is purely a nominal change with no fiscal or operational impact.

**3. Affected Parties & Stakeholders** The bill primarily affects federal administrative entities responsible for maintaining official records, maps, and databases (e.g., the National Park Service, which oversees the Christiansted National Historic Site). Local Virgin Islands residents, particularly those familiar with Thurland’s legacy, are the intended beneficiaries of the honor. Tourists and visitors to the site will see updated signage and references. No private property rights are altered, and no new obligations are placed on individuals or businesses. The change is ceremonial, impacting only nomenclature in official and public-facing materials.

**4. Potential Impact & Implications** The impact of H.R. 8121 is largely symbolic and commemorative. By renaming the bandstand, Congress affirms the value of local historical figures in the national narrative, particularly in U.S. territories where representation in federal honors can be limited. The bill may foster community pride in St. Croix and encourage greater awareness of Virgin Islands cultural heritage. There are no apparent downsides: no cost, no regulatory burden, and no controversy implied by the naming. However, the bill also highlights how Congress often devotes time to low-stakes, non-controversial measures—like naming post offices or bandstands—while larger legislative challenges remain unresolved. In this case, the gesture is benign, well-intentioned, and serves as a quiet acknowledgment of grassroots contributions to American life. Ultimately, it’s less about policy and more about pageantry—with a wink to the idea that even a bandstand can carry the weight of legacy, if only in name.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (fox_host personality)

**HR 8121: The Peter G. Thurland, Sr., Bandstand Designation Act** *Or: How Congress Wastes Time Naming Things While the Country Burns*

**1. Main Purpose & Objectives** The sole purpose of HR 8121 is to rename a bandstand in Christiansted, St. Croix, Virgin Islands, after Peter G. Thurland, Sr.—presumably a local figure deemed worthy of federal immortality. This is not a bill addressing climate change, inflation, crumbling infrastructure, or the fact that the Virgin Islands still lack full voting representation in Congress. No, this is about slapping a name on a wooden platform where people occasionally play steel drums. The objective? To allow a member of Congress to claim they “delivered” for their district by doing absolutely nothing of substance—except forcing federal bureaucrats to update maps and brochures. It’s legislative masturbation: satisfying only the sponsor, leaving everyone else unfulfilled and slightly annoyed.

**2. Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The bill has two sections, both as pointless as a screen door on a submarine: - **Section 1** renames the “Christiansted Bandstand” to the “Peter G. Thurland, Sr., Bandstand.” That’s it. No funding, no restoration, no new programs—just a semantic swap. - **Section 2** mandates that all federal references to the bandstand now use the new name. So, every National Park Service document, map, plaque, and GPS coordinate must be updated. Imagine the bureaucratic joy: GS-9s pulling overtime to edit PDFs no one reads, all so a congressman can send a press release titled *“I Named a Thing!”* This bill changes nothing about how the bandstand functions, who maintains it, or who gets to use it. It’s purely symbolic—like putting a “World’s Best Dad” mug on a corpse and calling it progress.

**3. Affected Parties & Stakeholders** - **Peter G. Thurland, Sr.’s family**: They get a plaque. Congratulations. Hope it brings them solace as the republic declines. - **National Park Service staff**: Now tasked with the urgent, nation-saving duty of renaming a bandstand in their databases. Priorities, people. - **Taxpayers**: You fund the paper, ink, and labor for this exercise in ego. Enjoy your return on investment: zero. - **Voters in the Virgin Islands**: You get a renamed bandstand instead of voting rights or federal parity. How… thoughtful. - **The sponsor**: Gets to boast about “honoring local heritage” while avoiding any vote that might actually risk something—like angering a donor or challenging the status quo.

**4. Potential Impact & Implications** The impact is negligible, except as a symptom of a deeper legislative malaise: Congress’s preference for empty gestures over hard work. This bill wastes floor time, staff resources, and public attention on a ceremonial rename while ignoring real crises. It reinforces the perception that legislators are more interested in photo ops than policy. In a functioning republic, this would be laughed out of committee. In ours? It passes unanimously, likely by voice vote, so no one has to take ownership of the stupidity. Long-term, it teaches future lawmakers that naming things is an acceptable substitute for governing. Next up: renaming a squirrel feeder after a lobbyist’s pet. The bandstand will stand. The stupidity? That’s eternal.

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

**Summary of H.R. 8121: To designate the Christiansted Bandstand at the Christiansted National Historic Site, St. Croix, Virgin Islands, as the "Peter G. Thurland, Sr., Bandstand"**

**1. Main Purpose & Objectives** The primary purpose of H.R. 8121 is to formally rename the bandstand located at the Christiansted National Historic Site on St. Croix in the U.S. Virgin Islands in honor of Peter G. Thurland, Sr. The bill seeks to recognize Thurland’s contributions—presumably to the community, culture, or historic preservation of St. Croix—by enshrining his name in a prominent public landmark. This act serves as a commemorative gesture to honor an individual deemed worthy of lasting recognition by Congress.

**2. Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The bill contains two operative sections: - **Section 1** officially designates the bandstand currently known as the “Christiansted Bandstand” as the “Peter G. Thurland, Sr., Bandstand.” - **Section 2** mandates that all references to the bandstand in any federal law, regulation, document, record, map, or other official paper be updated to reflect the new name. This ensures consistency across government materials and avoids confusion in legal or administrative contexts. The bill does not alter funding, management, or operational responsibilities for the site, which remains under the jurisdiction of the National Park Service.

**3. Affected Parties & Stakeholders** - **Peter G. Thurland, Sr.’s family and descendants** are directly honored through this recognition. - **Residents of St. Croix and the broader U.S. Virgin Islands community**, particularly those familiar with Thurland’s legacy, may view the renaming as a point of local pride. - **Visitors to the Christiansted National Historic Site** will encounter the new name on signage and interpretive materials. - **Federal agencies**, especially the National Park Service and the Government Publishing Office, must update official records, maps, and publications. - **Congressional offices** may reference the renamed site in future legislation or communications.

**4. Potential Impact & Implications** The impact is primarily symbolic and commemorative. The renaming fosters community recognition of local historical figures and contributes to the cultural narrative preserved at the historic site. While there are no direct fiscal or policy consequences, the change reinforces the federal government’s role in honoring individuals who have made significant contributions to local heritage. The bill sets a precedent for similar commemorative designations, particularly in U.S. territories, and underscores Congress’s authority to formally name federal landmarks. No controversy or opposition is indicated in the bill’s text or procedural history (passed the House on September 14, 2026). The change is administrative in nature but carries cultural significance for the Virgin Islands community.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (neutral personality)

Alright, brah, let’s kick back and talk about this bill like we’re chillin’ on the sand with a cold one, watching the waves roll in at Christiansted. So, HR 8121? Nah, it ain’t about taxes or defense spending or none of that heavy stuff. This one’s all about respect, legacy, and giving props where props are due—pure aloha spirit, but in the Virgin Islands style.

**Main Purpose & Objectives** The whole point of this bill is simple: to rename the Christiansted Bandstand at the Christiansted National Historic Site on St. Croix as the **“Peter G. Thurland, Sr., Bandstand.”** It’s a ceremonial designation—no new programs, no funding changes, just a formal tip of the hat to a man who clearly meant something to the community. The goal? Honor Peter G. Thurland, Sr.’s contributions—likely in culture, music, civic life, or historic preservation—by making his name part of a place where people gather, celebrate, and keep island traditions alive through music and events.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** Two short sections, but they pack a punch in symbolism: - **Section 1** does the actual renaming: the bandstand is now officially the Peter G. Thurland, Sr., Bandstand. No more “Christiansted Bandstand” in federal records—this is the new legal name. - **Section 2** makes sure the change sticks everywhere: any law, map, document, or government paper that ever mentioned the old name now automatically refers to the new one. So, no confusion, no loose ends—full federal recognition of the rename. It’s clean, straightforward, and uses the standard naming bill playbook—common for honoring local heroes without stirring up controversy.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders** First and foremost, the **Thurland family**—especially Peter G. Thurland, Sr.’s descendants—get a lasting tribute. Then there’s the **local community of St. Croix**, who likely see this as validation of their cultural heroes. The **National Park Service**, which manages the Christiansted National Historic Site, will update signage, brochures, and records. Tourists and visitors will now learn about Peter G. Thurland, Sr. when they stop by the bandstand—maybe even spark curiosity about his story. And honestly? The bill itself affects almost no one negatively—it’s a feel-good move with zero fiscal impact.

**Potential Impact & Implications** On the surface, it’s just a name change. But dig a little deeper, and it’s about **cultural memory**. Places shape how we remember people—and by enshrining Thurland’s name at a historic site where music and community converge, the bill says: *Your life mattered. Your legacy belongs here.* It reinforces the idea that national historic sites aren’t just about old forts and colonial architecture—they’re also about the living culture of the people who’ve shaped these places. In a broader sense, bills like this remind us that federal recognition can be a quiet but powerful way to uplift local narratives, especially in territories like the Virgin Islands, where stories sometimes get overlooked in the national conversation. Low cost, high meaning—now that’s how you govern with heart.

So yeah, not flashy, but deeply human. Respect. 🤙🏽🎶

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (surfer personality)

**Summary of H.R. 8121: Designation of the Peter G. Thurland, Sr., Bandstand**

**1. Main Purpose & Objectives** The sole purpose of H.R. 8121 is to formally designate the existing bandstand at the Christiansted National Historic Site on St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands, as the “Peter G. Thurland, Sr., Bandstand.” This is a commemorative act honoring Peter G. Thurland, Sr., presumably a notable local figure in Virgin Islands history—potentially a musician, community leader, or cultural preservationist associated with the site’s heritage. The bill seeks to enshrine his legacy through federal recognition of a public landmark.

**2. Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The bill contains two operative sections: - **Section 1** officially redesignates the “Christiansted Bandstand” as the “Peter G. Thurland, Sr., Bandstand.” - **Section 2** mandates that all federal laws, regulations, documents, records, maps, or other papers referencing the bandstand must now refer to it by its new name. This is a nominal change with no fiscal impact, no alteration to land use or management, and no effect on funding or operational authority of the National Park Service, which administers the Christiansted National Historic Site. It functions as a symbolic renaming under existing federal property naming authorities.

**3. Affected Parties & Stakeholders** - **Primary beneficiaries**: The family and legacy of Peter G. Thurland, Sr., and the local Virgin Islands community, particularly those who value cultural and historical recognition. - **Administrative entity**: The National Park Service (NPS), which must update signage, maps, brochures, and official records—though this entails minimal administrative burden. - **General public**: Visitors to the historic site will see the updated name, potentially increasing awareness of Thurland’s contributions. No private entities, industries, or regulated sectors are affected, as the bill involves no regulatory, economic, or land-use changes.

**4. Potential Impact & Implications** The impact is primarily symbolic and cultural. By federally recognizing Thurland, Sr., the bill contributes to the preservation of local heritage within a nationally managed historic site. It may foster community pride and encourage historical tourism or educational programming centered on Virgin Islands cultural figures. There is no indication of controversy, partisan division, or special interest influence in this bill—it appears to be a non-controversial, locally driven tribute, likely initiated by a Virgin Islands delegate or representative in response to community advocacy. As with many such naming bills, it reflects congressional deference to local honorees without imposing federal costs or altering policy. The enactment reinforces the National Park Service’s role in interpreting not only national but also local and cultural histories within its sites.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (whistleblower personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Del. Plaskett, Stacey E. [D-VI-At Large]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$73,600

14 donors

PACs

Organizations

$1,000

Committees

Individuals

$72,600

No PAC contributions found

AK-CHIN INDIAN COMMUNITY

1 transaction

$1,000

No committee contributions found

DOWNS, PAUL RICHARD

4 transactions

$19,800

SKURNIK, MICHAEL

2 transactions

$6,600

SECUNDA, CYNTHIA

2 transactions

$6,600

ROBERTS, MARJORIE R.

2 transactions

$6,600

SECUNDA, THOMAS F.

2 transactions

$6,600

WELTERS, ANTHONY

1 transaction

$3,300

HOLT, JOEL H.

1 transaction

$3,300

HOLT, JACQUELINE L.

1 transaction

$3,300

HENRY, SUDAFI

1 transaction

$3,300

THOMPSON, DARREL

1 transaction

$3,300

LORANGER, CHRISTIAN

1 transaction

$3,300

JURVETSON, KARLA

1 transaction

$3,300

VITALE, ANGELO

1 transaction

$3,300

Donor Network - Del. Plaskett, Stacey E. [D-VI-At Large]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

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

Showing 33 nodes and 40 connections

Total contributions: $40

Top Donors - Del. Plaskett, Stacey E. [D-VI-At Large]

Showing top 14 donors by contribution amount

1 Org13 Individuals

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 Agriculture

Minimal

Vector: 51%

Pages: 344-346AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill renames a bandstand in the U.S. Virgin Islands to honor a local figure, which is a commemorative act with no connection to agricultural policy, USDA functions, or the food system objectives outlined in the Project 2025 Department of Agriculture section."

— 311 — Department of Agriculture ENDNOTES 1. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Fiscal Year 2023 Budget Summary, p.1, https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/ files/documents/2023-usda-budget-summary.pdf (accessed December 14, 2022). 2. See, for example, U.S. Department of Agriculture, “Transforming the U.S. Food System,” https://www.usda. gov/fst (accessed December 14, 2022). 3. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Fiscal Year 2023 Budget Summary, p.1. 4. U.S. Department of Agriculture, “USDA Celebrates 150 Years,” https://www.usda.gov/our-agency/about-usda/ history (accessed December 16, 2022). 5. The law stated, “[T]here is hereby established at the seat of government of the United States a Department of Agriculture, the general designs and duties of which shall be to acquire and to diffuse among the people of the United States useful information on subjects connected with agriculture in the most general and comprehensive sense of that word, and to procure, propagate, and distribute among the people new and valuable seeds and plants.” Gladys L. Baker et al., Century of Service: The First 100 Years of the United States Department of Agriculture, (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1963) p. 13, https://babel. hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.b4254098&view=1up&seq=33 (accessed December 16, 2022). 6. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Fiscal Year 2023 Budget Summary, p. 2. 7. Ibid., p. 2. 8. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Strategic Plan: Fiscal Years 2022–2026, p. 3, https://www.usda.gov/sites/ default/files/documents/usda-fy-2022-2026-strategic-plan.pdf (accessed December 14, 2022). 9. News release, “USDA Announces Framework for Shoring Up the Food Supply Chain and Transforming the Food System to Be Fairer, More Competitive, More Resilient,” U.S. Department of Agriculture, June 1, 2022, https://www.usda.gov/media/press-releases/2022/06/01/usda-announces-framework-shoring-food-supply- chain-and-transforming (accessed December 14, 2022). 10. U.S. Department of Agriculture, “Transforming the U.S. Food System.” 11. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Strategic Plan: Fiscal Years 2022–2026, pp. 1–2. 12. U.S. Department of Agriculture, “Background on the U.S. Approach to the 2021 UN Food Systems Summit,” August 4, 2021, https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Background-on-US-approach-2021-UN- Food-Systems-Summit.pdf (accessed December 14, 2022). 13. U.S. Department of Agriculture, “UN Food Systems Summit,” https://www.usda.gov/oce/sustainability/un- summit (accessed December 14, 2022). 14. Mark Bittman et al., “How a National Food Policy Could Save Millions of American Lives,” The Washington Post, November 7, 2014, https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/how-a-national-food-policy-could- save-millions-of-american-lives/2014/11/07/89c55e16-637f-11e4-836c-83bc4f26eb67_story.html (accessed December 14, 2022); Daren Bakst and Gabriella Beaumont-Smith, “No, We Don’t Need to Transform the American Food System,” The Daily Signal, February 26, 2021, https://www.dailysignal.com/2021/02/26/ no-we-dont-need-to-transform-the-american-food-system/ (accessed December 14, 2022); and Daren Bakst, “Biden’s Food Conference Should Put People First, Not Environmental Extremism,” The Daily Signal, September 22, 2022, https://www.dailysignal.com/2022/09/22/bidens-food-conference-should-put-people- first-not-environmental-extremism/ (accessed December 14, 2022). 15. News release, “USDA to Invest Up to $300 Million in New Organic Transition Initiative,” U.S. Department of Agriculture, August 22, 2022, https://www.usda.gov/media/press-releases/2022/08/22/usda-invest-300- million-new-organic-transition-initiative (accessed December 14, 2022). 16. Gary Baise, “Sri Lanka’s Green New Deal Was a Disaster,” Farm Futures, November 14, 2022, https://www. farmprogress.com/commentary/sri-lankas-green-new-deal-was-disaster (accessed December 16, 2022). 17. See, for example, Catherine Greene et al., “Growing Organic Demand Provides High-Value Opportunities for Many Types of Producers,” Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, February 6, 2017, https://www. ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2017/januaryfebruary/growing-organic-demand-provides-high-value-opportunities- for-many-types-of-producers/#:~:text=ERS%20research%20shows%20that%20many,flavor%20desired%20 by%20the%20consumer (accessed December 14, 2022), and Andrea Carlson, “Investigating Retail Price Premiums for Organic Foods,” Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, May 24, 2016, https://www.ers. usda.gov/amber-waves/2016/may/investigating-retail-price-premiums-for-organic-foods/ (accessed December 16, 2022). Further, there are many myths, such as those regarding the alleged health benefit of organic food. One — 312 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise meta study found that “[t]he published literature lacks strong evidence that organic foods are significantly more nutritious than conventional foods.” Crystal Smith-Spangler et al., “Are Organic Foods Safer or Healthier Than Conventional Alternatives,” Annals of Internal Medicine, Vol. 157, No. 5 (September 4, 2012), pp. 348–366, https:// www.acpjournals.org/doi/epdf/10.7326/0003-4819-157-5-201209040-00007 (accessed December 16, 2022). 18. Steve Savage, “USDA Data Confirm Organic Yields Significantly Lower Than With Conventional Farming,” Genetic Literacy Project, February 16, 2018, https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2018/02/16/usda-data-confirm- organic-yields-dramatically-lower-conventional-farming/ (accessed December 16, 2022). 19. See, for example, U.S. Department of Agriculture, “Notice: Climate-Smart Agriculture and Forestry Partnership Program, Request for Comments,” USDA–2021–0010, October 21, 2021, https://www.regulations. gov/document/USDA-2021-0010-0001 (accessed December 16, 2022). 20. Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, Public Law 117–169. 21. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, “Productivity Growth in U.S. Agriculture (1948–2019),” https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/agricultural-productivity-in-the-u-s/productivity- growth-in-u-s-agriculture-1948-2019/ (accessed December 14, 2022). 22. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, “Total Food Budget Share Increased from 9.4 Percent of Disposable Income to 10.3 Percent in 2021,” July 15, 2022, https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/ chart-gallery/gallery/chart-detail/?chartId=76967 (accessed December 14, 2022). 23. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Quintiles of Income Before Taxes: Annual Expenditure Means, Shares, and Standard Errors, and Coefficients of Variation, Consumer Expenditure Surveys,” 2021, Table 1101, https://www.bls.gov/cex/tables/calendar-year/mean-item-share-average-standard-error/cu- income-quintiles-before-taxes-2021.pdf (accessed December 16, 2022), and Daren Bakst and Patrick Tyrrell, “Big Government Policies That Hurt the Poor and How to Address Them,” Heritage Foundation Special Report No.176, April 5, 2017, p. 7, https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/2017-04/SR176.pdf. 24. Daren Bakst and Joshua Sewell, “Congress Should Stop Abrogating Its Spending Power and Rein in the USDA Slush Fund,” Heritage Foundation Issue Brief No. 6052, February 19, 2021, p. 2, https://www.heritage.org/ budget-and-spending/report/congress-should-stop-abrogating-its-spending-power-and-rein-the-usda. 25. Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act of 1948, Public Law 80–806. 26. Bakst and Sewall, “Congress Should Stop Abrogating Its Spending Power.” 27. Ibid., p. 3. 28. Daren Bakst, “Comment from Bakst, Darren” on “Notice: Climate-Smart Agriculture and Forestry Partnership Program, Request for Comments,” USDA–2021–0010, October 21, 2021,” November 1, 2021, https://www. regulations.gov/document/USDA-2021-0010-0001/comment?filter=bakst (accessed December 16, 2022). 29. U.S. Department of Agriculture, “Notice: Climate-Smart Agriculture and Forestry Partnership Program.” 30. Megan Stubbs, “The Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC),” Congressional Research Service Report for Congress, updated January 14, 2021, https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R44606 (accessed December 16, 2022). 31. “Overall, 34 percent of all farms reported receiving some type of Government payment in 2021,” and “[o]verall, 14 percent of U.S. farms participated in Federal crop insurance programs.” Christine Whitt, Noah Miller, and Ryan Olver, “America’s Farms and Ranches at a Glance: 2022 Edition,” U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, pp. 24 and 26, https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/105388/eib-247. pdf?v=527.4 (accessed March 18, 2023). This data, which apparently does not cover crop insurance, included payments beyond just commodity payments, such as conservation payments. 32. Randy Schnepf, “Farm Safety-Net Payments Under the 2014 Farm Bill: Comparison by Program Crop,” Congressional Research Service Report for Congress, August 11, 2017, https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44914.pdf (accessed December 14, 2022). 33. Although livestock and specialty crop producers do receive some subsidies, former American Farm Bureau Federation President Bob Stallman captured the subsidy issue well. He “dismisse[d] outright the claim that farmers couldn’t survive without subsidy money. ‘Why does the livestock industry survive without subsidies?’ he ask[ed]. ‘Why does the specialty crop [fruit and vegetable] industry survive?’” Tamar Haspel, “Why Do Taxpayers Subsidize Rich Farmers?” The Washington Post, March 15, 2018, https://www.washingtonpost. com/lifestyle/food/why-do-taxpayers-subsidize-rich-farmers/2018/03/15/50e89906-27b6-11e8-b79d- f3d931db7f68_story.html (accessed March 18, 2023).

Department of Housing and Urban Development

Minimal

Vector: 50%

Pages: 548-550AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill renames a bandstand in the U.S. Virgin Islands as a commemorative gesture, which is unrelated to the Project 2025 policy objective of ending Housing First directives and shifting homelessness policy toward transitional housing and behavioral interventions under HUD. There is no thematic or policy overlap between the two."

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

Department of the Interior

Minimal

Vector: 50%

Pages: 563-565AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on renaming a bandstand in the U.S. Virgin Islands to honor a local figure, which is a commemorative and symbolic act with no connection to the Project 2025 policy objectives concerning Alaska's wildlife, water rights, federal land management, or the 30 by 30 initiative. There is no thematic or policy overlap between the two."

— 531 — Department of the Interior Wildlife and Waters. Throughout Alaska’s history, the federal government has treated Alaska as less than a sovereign state. This is especially the case when it comes to two of Alaska’s most valued resources, its wildlife and its waters. Immediate action is required to end, at least in part, this injustice. A new Admin- istration should: l Revoke National Park Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service rules regarding predator control and bear baiting, which are matters for state regulation. Such revocation is permitted under the 2017 Congressional Review Act.62 l Recognize Alaska’s authority to manage fish and game on all federal lands in accordance with ANILCA as during the Reagan Administration, when each DOI agency in Alaska signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game ceding to the state the lead on fish and wildlife management matters.63 l Issue a secretarial order declaring navigable waters in Alaska to be owned by the state so that the lands beneath these waters belong to Alaska. This will force the BLM to prove that water is not navigable, since in the case of non-navigability, any submerged lands belong to the BLM. Currently, BLM requires Alaska to prove navigability at its own expense—including the BLM’s preposterous assertion that the mighty Yukon River is non-navigable. l Reinstate President Trump’s 2020 Alaska Roadless Rule64 for the Tongass National Forest in Alaska, which was replaced by a Biden Roadless Rule that continues a 2001 Clinton rule affecting 9.37 million of the forest’s 16.7 million acres.65 The Clinton rule affects an area where communities are in small islands with no road access. It has prevented multiple infrastructure projects, including roads, electric transmission lines, and water and sewer projects, and it forces residents to use a heavily subsidized ferry system. Logging has been shut down to the extent that New York harvests more timber than does all of Alaska. OTHER ACTIONS The 30 by 30 Plan.66 President Biden’s Executive Order 14008 (30 by 30 plan)67 requires that the federal government, which already owns one-third of the country: (1) remove vast amounts of private property from productive use; and (2) end congressionally mandated uses of all federal land. The end result will be “total federal control of an additional 440 million acres of land or oceans in the U.S. by 2030.”68 — 532 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Although the new President should vacate that order, DOI under a conservative President must take immediate action on the 30 by 30 plan by vacating a secre- tarial order issued by the Biden DOI69 that eliminated the Trump Administration’s requirement for the approval of state and local governments before federal acquisi- tion of private property with monies from the Land and Water Conservation Fund.70 National Monument Designations. As has every Democratic President before him beginning with Jimmy Carter, Joe Biden has abused his authority under the Antiquities Act of 1906. Like the outrageous, unilateral withdrawals from public use of multiple use federal land under the Carter, Clinton, and Obama Administrations, Biden’s first national monument was one in Colorado—adopted over the objections of scores of local groups and at least one American Indian tribe.71 In the days before the 2024 election, Biden will likely designate more western monuments. Although President Trump courageously ordered a review of national mon- ument designations, the result of that review was insufficient in that only two national monuments in one state (Utah) were adjusted.72 Monuments in Maine and Oregon, for example, should have been adjusted downward given the finding of Secretary Ryan Zinke’s review that they were improperly designated. The new Administration’s review will permit a fresh look at past monument decrees and new ones by President Biden. Furthermore, the new Administration must vigorously defend the downward adjustments it makes to permit a ruling on a President’s authority to reduce the size of national monuments by the U.S. Supreme Court. Finally, the new Administration must seek repeal of the Antiquities Act of 1906, which permitted emergency action by a President long before the statutory author- ity existed for the protection of special federal lands, such as those with wild and scenic rivers, endangered specials, or other unique places. Moreover, in recent years, Congress has designated as national monuments those areas deserving of such congressional action. Oregon and California Lands Act. One national monument worthy of down- ward adjustment is in Oregon, where its designation and subsequent expansion interfere with the federal obligation to residents to harvest timber on its BLM lands. A federal district court ruled in 2019 that land subject to the Oregon and California (O&C) Grant Lands Act of 193773 was set aside by Congress to be har- vested for the benefit of the people of Oregon. Specifically, those federal lands are to be “managed…for permanent forest production” and its timber “sold, cut, and removed in conformity with the princip[le] of sustained yield.”74 As the district court concluded,75 beginning in 1990, the federal government erected a trifecta of illegal barriers to the accomplishment of the congressional mandate, beginning with a response to the listing of the northern spotted owl,76 continuing a decade later with the designation of the Cascade–Siskiyou National Monument,77 and concluding in 2017 with an expansion of that monument.78 In

Department of the Interior

Minimal

Vector: 49%

Pages: 575-577AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill is a commemorative renaming of a local bandstand in the U.S. Virgin Islands with no connection to land use, conservation, resource management, or the specific Interior Department policies cited in Project 2025, such as the 30x30 plan, Land and Water Conservation Fund, or monument designations."

Key themes:Department of the Interiorcommemorative designationfederal land recognition

— 543 — Department of the Interior 68. Karen Budd Falen, “Biden’s ‘30 By 30 Plan’: A Slap at American Private Property Rights,” Cowboy State Daily, April 15, 2021, https://cowboystatedaily.com/2021/04/15/bidens-30-by-30-plan-a-slap-at-american-private- property-rights/ (accessed March 16, 2023). 69. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3396: Rescission of Secretary’s Order 3388, ‘Land and Water Conservation Fund Implementation by the U.S. Department of the Interior,’” February 11, 2021, https://www. doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/elips/documents/so-3396-signed-2-11-21-final.pdf (accessed March 17, 2021). 70. Ibid. 71. Associated Press, “Ute Indian Tribe Criticizes Biden’s Camp Hale Monument Designation,” KUER 90.1, October 13, 2022. 72. William Perry Pendley, “Trump Wants to Free Up Federal Lands, His Interior Secretary Fails Him,” National Review Online, September 25, 2017, https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/09/secretary-interior-ryan-zinke- monuments-review-trump-executive-order-antiquities-act-environmentalists/ (accessed March 16, 2023). 73. The Oregon and California Revested Lands Sustained Yield Management Act of 1937, Public Law 75-405, 43 U.S. Code § 2601. 74. Ibid., and American Forest Resource Council v. Hammond, 422 F. Supp. 3d 184, 187 (D.D.C. 2019). 75. American Forest Resource Council v. Hammond, 422 F. Supp. 3d, pp. 187–188. 76. Federal Register, Vol. 55, No. 26 (June 26, 1990), p. 26114–26194. 77. Federal Register, Vol. 65, No. 114 (June 13, 2000), pp. 37249–37252. 78. Federal Register, Vol. 82, No. 11 (January 18, 2017), pp. 6145–6150. 79. American Forest Resource Council v. Hammond, 422 F. Supp. 3d 184 (D.D.C. 2019). 80. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Final Consent Decrees/Settlement Agreements,” https://www.doi.gov/ solicitor/transparency/final (accessed March 16, 2023). 81. Michael Doyle, “Interior Order Erases Litigation Website,” E&E News, June 17, 2022, https://www.eenews.net/ articles/interior-order-erases-litigation-website/ (accessed March 16, 2023). 82. Rob Roy Ramey, On the Origin of Specious Species (Lexington Books 2012), pp. 77–97. 83. William Perry Pendley, “Killing Jobs to Save the Sage Grouse: Junk Science, Weird Science, and Plain Nonsense,” Washington Times, May 31, 2012, https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/may/31/killing- jobs-to-save-the-sage-grouse/ (accessed March 16, 2023). 84. Michael Lee, “Wyoming’s Push to Delist Grizzly Bears from Endangered Species List Faces Opposition from Anti-Hunting Group,” Fox News, January 21, 2022, https://www.foxnews.com/politics/wyoming-delist-grizzly- endangered-species-list-opposition-anti-hunting-group (accessed March 18, 2023). 85. News release, “Trump Administration Returns Management and Protection of Gray Wolves to States and Tribes Following Successful Recovery Efforts,” October 29, 2020, https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/trump- administration-returns-management-and-protection-gray-wolves-states-and-tribes (accessed March 18, 2023). 86. 50 Code of Federal Regulations §17, and Sean Paige, “‘Rewilding’ Will Backfire on Colorado,” The Gazette, June 19, 2022, https://gazette.com/opinion/guest-column-rewilding-will-backfire-on-colorado/article_ d0016672-ed79-11ec-b027-abe62ba840a1.html (accessed March 18, 2023). 87. Madeleine C. Bottrill et al., “Is Conservation Triage Just Smart Decision Making?” Trends in Ecology & Evolution, Vol. 23, No. 12 (December 2008), pp. 649–654, https://karkgroup.org/wp-content/uploads/Bottrill-et-al-2008. pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 88. Rob Roy Ramey II, testimony before the Committee on Resources, U.S. House of Representatives, April 8, 2014, https://naturalresources.house.gov/uploadedfiles/rameytestimony4_8.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 89. Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, Public Law 95–87. 90. Pennsylvania is the nation’s third-largest coal producer, and its state program was the model for SMCRA. 91. Federal Register, Vol. 85, No. 207 (October 26, 2020), pp. 67631–67635. 92. U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, “Approximate Original Contour,” INE–26, June 23, 2020, https://www.osmre.gov/sites/default/files/pdfs/directive1003.pdf (accessed March 18, 2023). 93. Tim Gallaudet and Timothy R. Petty, “Federal Action Plan for Improving Forecasts of Water Availability,” National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, October 2019, https://www.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/ legacy/document/2019/Oct/Federal%20Action%20Plan%20for%20Improving%20Forecasts%20of%20 Water%20Availability.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). — 544 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 94. 32 U.S. Code, ch. 52. 95. Donald J. Trump, “Presidential Memorandum on Promoting the Reliable Supply and Delivery of Water in the West,” October 19, 2018, https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/presidential-actions/presidential- memorandum-promoting-reliable-supply-delivery-water-west/ (accessed March 17, 2023). 96. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Land Buy-Back Program for Tribal Nations,” https://www.doi.gov/ buybackprogram (accessed March 18, 2023). 97. Great American Outdoors Act, Public Law 116–152.

Department of Health and Human Services

Minimal

Vector: 49%

Pages: 533-535AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill is a commemorative renaming of a bandstand in the U.S. Virgin Islands with no connection to healthcare policy, Medicaid reform, or any Department of Health and Human Services initiatives outlined in the Project 2025 excerpt."

— 500 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 32. Owcharenko Schaefer, “Medicaid at 55: Understanding the Design, Trends, and Reforms Needed to Improve the Health Care Safety Net.” 33. Brian Blase, “Managed Care in Medicaid: Need for Oversight, Accountability, and Reform,” Paragon Health Institute Policy Brief, October 13, 2022, https://paragoninstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/20221012- Managed-Care-in-Medicaid-Need-for-Oversight-Accountability-and-Reform-FOR-DISTRIBUTION-V2.pdf (accessed February 13, 2023). 34. Owcharenko Schaefer, “Medicaid at 55: Understanding the Design, Trends, and Reforms Needed to Improve the Health Care Safety Net.” 35. 42 U.S. Code § 1315, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1315 (accessed March 17, 2023). 36. Chad D. Savage and Lee S. Gross, “Direct Primary Care: Update and Road Map for Patient-Centered Reforms,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 3635, June 28, 2021, https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/ files/2021-06/BG3635.pdf. 37. H.R. 133, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, Public Law No. 116-260, 116th Congress, December 27, 2020, Division BB, Title I, https://www.congress.gov/116/plaws/publ260/PLAW-116publ260.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 38. Doug Badger, “On Surprise Medical Bills, Congress Should Side with Consumers, Not Special Interests,” Heritage Foundation Commentary, January 31, 2020, https://www.heritage.org/health-care-reform/ commentary/surprise-medical-bills-congress-should-side-consumers-not-special. 39. Edmund F. Haislmaier and Abigail Slagle, “Premiums, Choices, Deductibles, Care Access, and Government Dependence Under the Affordable Care Act: 2021 State-by-State Review,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 3668, November 2, 2021, https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/2021-11/BG3668.pdf. 40. U.S. Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service; U.S. Department of Labor, Employee Benefits Security Administration; and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, “Transparency in Coverage,” Final Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 85, No. 219 (November 12, 2020), pp. 72158–72310, https://www.govinfo.gov/ content/pkg/FR-2020-11-12/pdf/2020-24591.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 41. David N. Bernstein and Robert E. Moffit, “New Price Transparency Rule Will Help Transform America’s Health Care System,” Heritage Foundation Commentary, November 1, 2020, https://www.heritage.org/health-care- reform/commentary/new-price-transparency-rule-will-help-transform-americas-health-care. 42. Sluzala and Haislmaier, “Lessons from COVID-19: How Policymakers Should Reform the Regulation of Clinical Testing.” 43. Ibid. 44. Most recently enacted in H.R. 2471, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022, Public Law No. 117-103, 117th Congress, March 15, 2022, Division H, Title V, §§ 506–507, https://www.congress.gov/117/plaws/publ103/ PLAW-117publ103.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 45. President Joseph R. Biden Jr., Executive Order 14079, “Securing Access to Reproductive and Other Healthcare Services,” August 3, 2022, in Federal Register, Vol. 87, No. 154 (August 11, 2022), pp. 49505–49507, https:// www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2022-08-11/pdf/2022-17420.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 46. Planned Parenthood, 2020–2021 Annual Report, p. 27, https://www.plannedparenthood.org/uploads/ filer_public/40/8f/408fc2ad-c8c2-48da-ad87-be5cc257d370/211214-ppfa-annualreport-20-21-c3-digital.pdf (accessed March 22, 2023). 47. Ibid., pp. 30 and 31. Total revenue of $1,714.4 million (p. 30) minus $1,580.7 million in total expenses (p. 31) yields $133,7 million. 48. Ibid., p. 28. 49. Ibid., p. 30. 50. H.R. 372, Protecting Life and Taxpayers Act of 2023, 118th Congress, introduced January 17, 2023, https://www. congress.gov/118/bills/hr372/BILLS-118hr372ih.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 51. 42 U.S. Code § 18023, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/18023 (accessed March 17, 2023). 52. H.R. 3128, Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985, Public Law No. 99-272, 99th Congress, April 7, 1986, Title IX, Subtitle A, Part 1, Subpart B, § 9121, https://www.congress.gov/99/statute/STATUTE-100/ STATUTE-100-Pg82.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 53. H.R. 8070, Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Public Law No. 93-112, 93rd Congress, September 26, 1973, https://www. congress.gov/93/statute/STATUTE-87/STATUTE-87-Pg355.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). — 501 — Department of Health and Human Services 54. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Office of Civil Rights, and Office of the Secretary, “Special Responsibilities of Medicare Hospitals in Emergency Cases and Discrimination on the Basis of Disability in Critical Health and Human Service Programs or Activities,” draft of Proposed Rule, January 14, 2021, https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/infants-nprm.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 55. H.R. 26, Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, 118th Congress, introduced January 9, 2023, https:// www.congress.gov/118/bills/hr26/BILLS-118hr26pcs.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 56. H.R. 7, No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act of 2023, 118th Congress, introduced January 9, 2023, https://www.congress.gov/118/bills/hr7/BILLS-118hr7ih.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 57. S. 401, Conscience Protection Act of 2021, 117th Congress, introduced February 24, 2021, https://www.congress. gov/117/bills/s401/BILLS-117s401is.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 58. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and Office of the Secretary, “Nondiscrimination in Health Programs and Activities,” Notice of Proposed Rulemaking; Notice of Tribal Consultation, Federal Register, Vol. 87, No. 149 (August 4, 2022), pp. 47824–47920, https://www.govinfo. gov/content/pkg/FR-2022-08-04/pdf/2022-16217.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 59. Ibid., p. 47916. 60. The regulation was not finalized before the end of the Administration. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Services, “Revision of Categorical Eligibility in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP),” Proposed Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 142 (July 24, 2019), pp. 35570–55581, https:// www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/07/24/2019-15670/revision-of-categorical-eligibility-in-the- supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program-snap (accessed March 17, 2023). 61. 45 Code of Federal Regulations § 75.300(c) and (d), https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-45/subtitle-A/ subchapter-A/part-75/subpart-D/subject-group-ECFR911e5e1a30bfbcb/section-75.300 (accessed March 17, 2023). 62. H.R. 1750, Child Welfare Provider Inclusion Act of 2021, 117th Congress, introduced March 10, 2021, https:// www.congress.gov/117/bills/hr1750/BILLS-117hr1750ih.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023), and S. 656, Child Welfare Provider Inclusion Act of 2021, 117th Congress, introduced March 10, 2021, https://www.congress.gov/117/bills/ s656/BILLS-117s656is.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 63. S. 3949, Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2022, Public Law No. 117-348, 117th Congress, January 25, 2023, https://www.congress.gov/117/plaws/publ348/PLAW-117publ348.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 64. Kelsey Y. Santamaria, “Child Migrants at the Border: The Flores Settlement Agreement and Other Legal Developments,” Congressional Research Service In Focus No. IF11799, April 1, 2021, https://crsreports.congress. gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11799 (accessed March 17, 2023). 65. Report, Building a Happy Home: Marriage Education as a Tool to Strengthen Families, Social Capital Project Report No. 1-22, March 2022, p. 17, https://www.jec.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/3d102525-6f0d-48ed- 92f4-d71edd468ad6/building-a-happy-home.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). The cover of the report reflects that the Social Capital Project is “[a] project of the Joint Economic Committee – Republicans.” 66. See, for example, Alan J. Hawkins, “Are Federally Supported Relationship Education Programs for Lower-Income Individuals and Couples Working? A Review of Evaluation Research,” American Enterprise Institute, September 2019, https://www. congress.gov/117/plaws/publ228/PLAW-117publ228.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 67. H.R. 8404, Respect for Marriage Act, Public Law No. 117-228, 117th Congress, December 13, 2022, https://www. congress.gov/117/plaws/publ228/PLAW-117publ228.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 68. Madison Marino, “Over 1,000 Safety Violations Mar Head Start. Children Deserve Better,” Heritage Foundation Commentary, November 10, 2022, https://www.heritage.org/education/commentary/over-1000-safety- violations-mar-head-start-children-deserve-better. 69. American Hospital Association v. Becerra, 596 U.S. ___ (2022), https://www.supremecourt.gov/ opinions/21pdf/20-1114_09m1.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 70. U.S. Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service; U.S. Department of Labor, Employee Benefits Security Administration; and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, “Coverage of Certain Preventive Services Under the Affordable Care Act,” Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Federal Register, Vol. 88, No. 22 (February 2, 2023), pp. 7236–7281, https://www. govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2023-02-02/pdf/2023-01981.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023).

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 Del. Plaskett, Stacey E.

To direct the Secretary of Commerce to submit to Congress a report containing an assessment of the value, cost, and feasibility of a trans-Atlantic submarine fiber optic cable connecting the contiguous United States, the United States Virgin Islands, Ghana, and Nigeria.

119/hr/1737

To amend title 49, United States Code, to grant the United States Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico eligibility to issue commercial driver's licenses, and for other purposes.

119/hr/5656

Back to All Bills