To amend title 36, United States Code, to move the place of incorporation and domicile of the National Woman’s Relief Corps to Illinois, to move the principal office of such Corps to Murphysboro, Illinois, and for other purposes.

Download PDF
Bill ID: 119/hr/988
Last Updated: August 9, 2026

Sponsored by

Rep. Bost, Mike [R-IL-12]

ID: B001295

Follow the money

The bill

To amend title 36, United States Code, to move the place of incorporation and domicile of the National Woman’s Relief Corps to Illinois, to move the principal office of such Corps to Murphysboro, Illinois, and for other purposes.

HR. 988, 119th Congress.

The sponsor

Rep. Bost, Mike [R-IL-12]

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

The money

$104,500 raised

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

The alignment

55% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Department of Housing and Urban Development" section, p. 545-547 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 the Judiciary.

February 2, 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

Another thrilling episode of "Congressional Theater" brought to you by the esteemed members of the 119th Congress. Today's feature presentation is HR 988, a bill that will undoubtedly change the course of human history... or not.

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

The main purpose of this earth-shattering legislation is to move the place of incorporation and domicile of the National Woman's Relief Corps from the District of Columbia to Illinois, and relocate its principal office from Springfield to Murphysboro. Wow, I can barely contain my excitement. It's not like there are more pressing issues in the country that require attention.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

The bill makes three groundbreaking changes to existing law:

1. Section 153701(b) of title 36 is amended to change the place of incorporation and domicile from the District of Columbia to Illinois. Because, clearly, this is a matter of national importance. 2. Section 153708 is amended to move the principal office from Springfield to Murphysboro. I'm sure the good people of Murphysboro are thrilled to have this prestigious organization relocate to their fair city. 3. Section 153710 is amended to update the service of process provisions, because who doesn't love a good game of "find the designated agent"?

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

The affected parties and stakeholders in this drama include:

* The National Woman's Relief Corps: I'm sure they're just thrilled to have their incorporation and domicile changed without their input. * The people of Illinois: Who will no doubt be delighted to have this organization relocate to their state, bringing with it a plethora of jobs and economic growth (just kidding). * The residents of Murphysboro: Who will undoubtedly benefit from the prestige and honor of hosting the principal office of the National Woman's Relief Corps.

**Potential Impact & Implications**

The potential impact and implications of this bill are staggering:

* It may create a few jobs in Murphysboro, but let's be real, it's not like anyone actually cares about the economic development of small towns. * It will undoubtedly bring a sense of pride and accomplishment to the sponsors of the bill, who can now point to their "accomplishments" on the campaign trail. * It will further solidify the reputation of Congress as a body that is completely out of touch with the needs and concerns of the American people.

In conclusion, HR 988 is a shining example of the kind of legislative theater that passes for governance in this country. It's a bill that solves no real problems, addresses no pressing issues, and serves only to further line the pockets of special interests and politicians. Bravo, Congress!

Related Topics

State & Local Government AffairsJudiciary & Legal Reform
Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Bost, Mike [R-IL-12]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions
$104,500
19 donors
PACs
$0
Organizations
$12,100
Committees
$0
Individuals
$92,400

No PAC contributions found

1
AK-CHIN INDIAN COMMUNITY
2 transactions
$6,600
2
MIAMI TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA
1 transaction
$2,000
3
CAMPBELL FARMS
1 transaction
$1,500
4
MUSCOGEE CREEK NATION
2 transactions
$1,500
5
WAITE, TOMB & EBERLY LLP
1 transaction
$500

No committee contributions found

1
EMMET, RICHARD
4 transactions
$23,100
2
GILLIAM, RICHARD
2 transactions
$9,900
3
SCHWAB, CHARLES
1 transaction
$6,600
4
STERN, ELIZABETH MAY
1 transaction
$6,600
5
WEEKLEY, RICHARD
1 transaction
$6,600
6
BRADLEY, JACQUELINE
1 transaction
$6,600
7
BUKOWSKY, BRANT N. MR.
2 transactions
$6,600
8
BUKOWSKY, BROCK R. MR.
2 transactions
$6,600
9
BUKOWSKY, JENNIFER
1 transaction
$3,300
10
DONOHO, KIMBERLY K. MRS.
1 transaction
$3,300
11
FLINT, ETHAN
1 transaction
$3,300
12
GREENBLATT, SCOTT
1 transaction
$3,300
13
HOPKINS, JUSTIN MR.
1 transaction
$3,300
14
MCINERNEY, THOMAS E.
1 transaction
$3,300

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 3 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Rep. Ciscomani, Juan [R-AZ-6]

ID: C001133

Top Contributors

30

1
SALT RIVER PIMA MARICOPA INDIAN COMMUNITY
PACSCOTTSDALE, AZ
$1,000
Jun 14, 2024
2
CHEROKEE NATION
OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK
$3,300
Oct 31, 2024
3
EASTERN BAND OF CHEROKEE INDIANS
OrganizationCHEROKEE, NC
$3,300
Nov 5, 2024
4
POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS
OrganizationATMORE, AL
$3,300
Jun 30, 2024
5
DELTA AIRLINES
OrganizationATLANTA, GA
$2,500
Jul 30, 2024
6
THE CHICKASAW NATION
OrganizationADA, OK
$2,000
Oct 8, 2024
7
POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS
OrganizationATMORE, AL
$1,834
Jun 30, 2024
8
MS BAND OF CHOCTAW INDIANS
OrganizationCHOCTAW, MS
$1,000
Nov 5, 2024
9
COLORADO RIVER INDIAN TRIBES
OrganizationPARKER, AZ
$1,000
Jun 30, 2023
10
THE CHICKASAW NATION
OrganizationADA, OK
$1,000
Jun 30, 2023

Rep. Balderson, Troy [R-OH-12]

ID: B001306

Top Contributors

23

1
THORP FOR SHERIFF
OrganizationNEWARK, OH
$500
Oct 7, 2024
2
FRIENDS OF MARK FRAIZER
OrganizationCOLUMBUS, OH
$250
Jun 15, 2023
3
FRIENDS OF MARK FRAIZER
OrganizationCOLUMBUS, OH
$200
Sep 3, 2024
4
STEMMER, THOMAS A
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualBYESVILLE, OH
$5,800
Feb 28, 2024
5
STEMMER, THOMAS A
IndividualBYESVILLE, OH
$5,800
Feb 28, 2024
6
BORKOWSKI, BRIAN
LACO HOLDINGS • CEO
IndividualBELLEAIR BEACH, FL
$3,300
Oct 22, 2024
7
MACKINNON, JEFFREY
FARRAGUT PARTNERS • LOBBYIST
IndividualWASHINGTON, DC
$3,300
Nov 5, 2024
8
DICKERSON, RICHARD D
UTILITY TECHNOLOGY INT'L CORP • CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
IndividualWEST JEFFERSON, OH
$3,300
Oct 26, 2023
9
LEMMON, THEODORE
SHELLY COMPANY • SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT
IndividualNEW PLYMOUTH, OH
$3,300
Dec 15, 2023
10
DICKERSON, JOAN
HOMEMAKER • HOMEMAKER
IndividualWEST JEFFERSON, OH
$3,300
Oct 26, 2023

Rep. Kean, Thomas H. [R-NJ-7]

ID: K000398

Top Contributors

22

1
EASTERN BAND OF CHEROKEE INDIANS
OrganizationCHEROKEE, NC
$3,300
Oct 24, 2024
2
EASTERN BAND OF CHEROKEE INDIANS
OrganizationCHEROKEE, NC
$3,300
Dec 27, 2024
3
LOEB, JOHN
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualPURCHASE, NY
$6,600
Nov 4, 2024
4
LOEB, JOHN
IndividualPURCHASE, NY
$6,600
Nov 4, 2024
5
VOCCOLA, FREDERICK
KASEYA • CEO
IndividualMIAMI, FL
$6,600
Mar 1, 2024
6
PISANO, JOHN
IndividualWEST PALM BEACH, FL
$3,700
Jan 22, 2024
7
VOCCOLA, FREDERICK
IndividualMIAMI, FL
$3,500
Mar 12, 2024
8
NIEMIEC, DAVID
SELF • INVESTMENTS
IndividualNEW YORK, NY
$3,300
Oct 11, 2024
9
TAYLOR, ALEXANDER
MATRIX DEV GRP • REAL ESTATE
IndividualBELMAR, NJ
$3,300
Oct 1, 2024
10
BRUECKNER, RICHARD F.
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualBEDMINSTER, NJ
$3,300
Oct 4, 2024

Donor Network - Rep. Bost, Mike [R-IL-12]

PACs
Organizations
Individuals
Politicians

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

Loading...

Showing 47 nodes and 65 connections

Total contributions: $65

Top Donors - Rep. Bost, Mike [R-IL-12]

Showing top 19 donors by contribution amount

5 Orgs14 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 Housing and Urban Development

Weak
Vector: 55%
Pages: 545-547AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 988 focuses on relocating a veterans' organization's incorporation and office, while the Project 2025 HUD section discusses administrative reforms to reduce waste, fraud, and abuse. The only tangential connection is a shared theme of improving administrative efficiency through organizational changes."

Key themes:administrative efficiencyorganizational restructuring

— 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.

Executive Office of the President of the United States

Minimal
Vector: 55%
Pages: 99-102AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 988 is a technical bill concerning the relocation of a veterans' support organization's incorporation and office location, with no connection to executive personnel management, civil service reform, or the central personnel agencies discussed in the Project 2025 excerpt."

— 67 — Executive Office of the President of the United States 33. H.R. 10230, National Science and Technology Policy, Organization, and Priorities Act of 1976, Public Law No. 94-282, 94th Congress, May 11, 1976, https://www.congress.gov/94/statute/STATUTE-90/STATUTE-90-Pg459. pdf (accessed February 1, 2023). 34. H.R. 4346, CHIPS [Creating Helpful Incentives to Produce Semiconductors] and Science Act, Public Law No. 117-167, 117th Congress, August 9, 2022, https://www.congress.gov/117/plaws/publ167/PLAW-117publ167.pdf (accessed February 1, 2023). 35. S. 169, Global Change Research Act of 1990, Public Law No. 101-606, 101st Congress, November 16, 1990, https://www.congress.gov/101/statute/STATUTE-104/STATUTE-104-Pg3096.pdf (accessed February 1, 2023). 36. S. 1075, National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Public Law No. 91-190, 91st Congress, January 1, 1970, https://uscode.house.gov/statutes/pl/91/190.pdf (accessed February 1, 2023). 37. Andrus v. Sierra Club, 442 U.S. 347, 358 (1979), https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep442/ usrep442347/usrep442347.pdf (accessed March 7, 2023). 38. Title XLI (41) in H.R. 22, Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act), Public Law No. 114-94, 114th Congress, December 4, 2015, https://www.congress.gov/114/statute/STATUTE-129/STATUTE-129-Pg1312.pdf (accessed February 1, 2023). 39. President Donald J. Trump, Executive Order 13807, “Establishing Discipline and Accountability in the Environmental Review and Permitting Process for Infrastructure Projects,” August 15, 2017, in Federal Register, Vol. 82, No. 163 (August 24, 2017), pp. 40463–40469, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2017-08-24/ pdf/2017-18134.pdf (accessed February 1, 2023). 40. H.R. 5210, Anti-Drug Abuse of 1988, Public Law No. 100-690, 100th Congress, November 18, 1988, https://www. congress.gov/100/statute/STATUTE-102/STATUTE-102-Pg4181.pdf (accessed February 1, 2023). 41. President Joseph R. Biden Jr., Executive Order 14020, “Establishment of the White House Gender Policy Council,” March 8, 2021, in Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 46 (March 11, 2021), pp. 13797–13801, https://www. govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2021-03-11/pdf/2021-05183.pdf (accessed January 31, 2023). 42. U.S. Constitution, Amendment XXV, https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxxv (accessed March 9, 2023). 43. 50 U.S.C. § 3021(c)(1), https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/3021 (accessed March 9, 2023). 44. 20 U.S.C. § 20(a), https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/20/42#:~:text=The%20business%20of%20the%20 Institution%20shall%20be%20conducted,no%20two%20of%20them%20of%20the%20same%20State (accessed March 9, 2023). 45. Vice Presidents Gerald Ford and Lyndon Johnson assumed (Ford) or initially assumed (Johnson) the office of the presidency by a process of succession. — 69 — 3 CENTRAL PERSONNEL AGENCIES: MANAGING THE BUREAUCRACY Donald Devine, Dennis Dean Kirk, and Paul Dans OVERVIEW From the very first Mandate for Leadership, the “personnel is policy” theme has been the fundamental principle guiding the government’s personnel management. As the U.S. Constitution makes clear, the President’s appointment, direction, and removal author- ities are the central elements of his executive power.1 In implementing that power, the people and the President deserve the most talented and responsible workforce possible. Who the President assigns to design and implement his political policy agenda will determine whether he can carry out the responsibility given to him by the American people. The President must recognize that whoever holds a government position sets its policy. To fulfill an electoral mandate, he must therefore give per- sonnel management his highest priority, including Cabinet-level precedence. The federal government’s immense bureaucracy spreads into hundreds of agen- cies and thousands of units and is centered and overseen at the top by key central personnel agencies and their governing laws and regulations. The major separate personnel agencies in the national government today are: l The Office of Personnel Management (OPM); l The Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB); l The Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA); and l The Office of Special Counsel (OSC).

Department of Labor and Related Agencies

Minimal
Vector: 54%
Pages: 618-620AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 988 is a technical bill concerning the relocation of the National Woman's Relief Corps' incorporation and office location, with no connection to sex discrimination enforcement, pro-life workplace policies, or religious employer protections outlined in the Project 2025 Department of Labor section."

— 585 — Department of Labor and Related Agencies l Direct agencies to refocus enforcement of sex discrimination laws. The President should direct agencies to focus their enforcement of sex discrimination laws on the biological binary meaning of “sex.” PRO-LIFE MEASURES l Promote pro-life workplace accommodations for mothers. Federal law should protect life and promote pro-family policies. Current law, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act,3 provides nondiscrimination protections in the workplace for pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions. The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA)4 requires employers to make reasonable accommodations for women “to the known limitations related to the pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions,” unless “the accommodation would impose an undue hardship on the operation of the [employer’s] business.” The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) also provides nondiscrimination and accommodation protections in the workplace for certain pregnancy-related disability.5 None of these laws requires an employer provide health insurance benefits for elective abortion. l Pass a law requiring equal (or greater) benefits for pro-life support for mothers and clarifying abortion exclusions. Congress should pass a law requiring that to the extent an employer provides employee benefits for abortion, it must provide equal or greater benefits for pregnancy, childbirth, maternity, and adoption. That law should also clarify that no employer is required to provide any accommodations or benefits for abortion. l Keep anti-life “benefits” out of benefit plans. Some benefits attorneys and pro-choice advocates have argued since the Supreme Court’s Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision6 that the longstanding doctrine of Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA)7 preemption should block individual states’ efforts to prohibit employers from helping employees procure abortions via offering various kinds of coverage under employee-sponsored benefit plans. ERISA should not be allowed to trump states’ ability to protect innocent human life in the womb. Congress and DOL should clarify that ERISA does not preempt states’ power to restrict abortion, surrogacy, or other anti-life “benefits.” RELIGION l Provide robust protections for religious employers. America’s religious diversity means that workplaces include people of many faiths and that many employers are faith-based. Nevertheless, the Biden Administration has been hostile to people of faith, especially those with traditional beliefs — 586 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise about marriage, gender, and sexuality. The new Administration should enact policies with robust respect for religious exercise in the workplace, including under the First Amendment, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA),8 Title VII, and federal conscience protection laws. l Issue an executive order protecting religious employers and employees. The President should make clear via executive order that religious employers are free to run their businesses according to their religious beliefs, general nondiscrimination laws notwithstanding, and support participation of religious employees and employers as federal contractors and in federal activities and programs. l Clarify Title VII’s religious organization exemptions. Congress should clarify Title VII’s religious organization exemptions to make it more explicit that those employers may make employment decisions based on religion regardless of nondiscrimination laws. l Provide Robust Accommodations for Religious Employees. Title VII requires reasonable accommodations for an employee’s sincerely held religious beliefs, observances, or practices unless it poses an undue hardship on the employer’s business. These accommodation protections also apply to issues related to marriage, gender, and sexuality. Unless the Supreme Court overrules its bad precedent, Congress should clarify that undue hardship means “significant difficulty or expenses,” not “more than a de minimis cost” as the Court has previously held. General EEOC Reforms. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commis- sion (EEOC) does not have rulemaking authority under Title VII and other laws it enforces, yet it issues “guidance,” “technical assistance,” and other documents, including some that push new policy positions. EEOC should disclaim its regulatory pretensions and abide by the guidance reforms dis- cussed below. l EEOC should disclaim its regulatory pretensions. l Affirm decision-making via majority vote of Commissioners. EEOC should affirm as policy the Title VII requirement that it exercise substantive power via majority vote of Commissioners, not by unilateral Chair action or by delegation to staff.

Showing 3 of 5 policy matches

About These Correlations

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

Full Policy Text

Related Bills