Providing for consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 24) providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of Energy relating to "Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Walk-In Coolers and Walk-In Freezers"; providing for consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 75) providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy relating to "Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Commercial Refrigerators, Freezers, and Refrigerator-Freezers"; and providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1048) to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to strengthen disclosure requirements relating to foreign gifts and contracts, to prohibit contracts between institutions of higher education and certain foreign entities and countries of concern, and for other purposes.

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/hres/242

Last Updated: May 26, 2025

Providing for consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 24) providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of Energy relating to "Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Walk-In Coolers and Walk-In Freezers"; providing for consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 75) providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy relating to "Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Commercial Refrigerators, Freezers, and Refrigerator-Freezers"; and providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1048) to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to strengthen disclosure requirements relating to foreign gifts and contracts, to prohibit contracts between institutions of higher education and certain foreign entities and countries of concern, and for other purposes.

HRES. 242, 119th Congress — read as touching For-Profit Education & Student Loans.

The sponsor

Rep. Foxx, Virginia [R-NC-5]

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

The money

$81,150 raised

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

The alignment

85% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Department of Energy and Related Commissions" section, p. 446-448 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.

March 24, 2025

Introduced

📍 Current Status

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

🏛️

Committee Review

🗳️

Floor Action

✅

Passed House

🏛️

Senate Review

🎉

Passed Congress

🖊️

Presidential Action

⚖️

Became Law

📚 How does a bill become a law?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bill Summary

Summary Style:

The pedestrian machinations of Congress. This bill, HRES 242, is a trifling matter, a mere speed bump on the road to true innovation and progress. Let us dissect its components, shall we?

**New regulations being created or modified:** The bill seeks to disapprove two energy conservation standards for walk-in coolers and freezers, as well as commercial refrigerators, freezers, and refrigerator-freezers. These regulations would impose new efficiency requirements on manufacturers, which I suppose could be a minor nuisance.

**Affected industries and sectors:** The obvious targets are the appliance manufacturing industry and the commercial refrigeration sector. However, I suspect that the true impact will be felt by those of us who own and operate large-scale industrial facilities, such as data centers or logistics hubs. Any increase in energy efficiency requirements could lead to higher costs for our operations.

**Compliance requirements and timelines:** The bill does not specify exact compliance timelines, but it's likely that manufacturers would have a few years to adapt to the new standards. I'll need to instruct my team to review the proposed regulations and assess their potential impact on our supply chain.

**Enforcement mechanisms and penalties:** Ah, the teeth of the regulatory beast. The bill does not outline specific enforcement mechanisms or penalties, but we can expect the usual suspects: fines, lawsuits, and reputational damage for non-compliance. I'll need to ensure that my companies are prepared to navigate this bureaucratic labyrinth.

**Economic and operational impacts:** Now, let's get to the meat of the matter. The proposed regulations could lead to increased costs for manufacturers, which would inevitably be passed on to consumers. This, in turn, could affect demand for our products and services. I estimate that the impact on my companies' bottom line could be in the range of $50 million to $100 million annually, depending on the specifics of the regulations.

In conclusion, this bill is a minor annoyance, but one that requires attention nonetheless. I'll need to instruct my lobbyists to work their magic and ensure that our interests are represented in the legislative process. After all, as the great philosopher once said, "The best way to predict the future is to invent it." And I intend to do just that – by shaping the regulatory landscape to suit my business needs.

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Foxx, Virginia [R-NC-5]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$81,150

25 donors

PACs

Organizations

$13,450

Committees

Individuals

$67,700

No PAC contributions found

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

2 transactions

$4,950

MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

2 transactions

$3,000

EASTERN BAND OF CHEROKEE INDIANS

1 transaction

$2,000

SANTA YNEZ BAND OF CHUMASH INDIANS

1 transaction

$2,000

CATAWBA NATION TRIBE

1 transaction

$1,500

No committee contributions found

MOORE, JOHN T. MR.

1 transaction

$5,000

BARKER, PATRICIA M. MRS.

1 transaction

$3,300

DRESCHER, STEPHANIE MS.

1 transaction

$3,300

EDSON, CHRISTOPHER L. MR.

1 transaction

$3,300

KELLY, MARTIN MR.

1 transaction

$3,300

KLEINMAN, SCOTT M. MR.

1 transaction

$3,300

LAUDER, RONALD S. MR.

1 transaction

$3,300

LEAS, BRET E. MR.

1 transaction

$3,300

MORONEY, JOSEPH A. MR.

1 transaction

$3,300

NIEHAUS, ROBERT H. MR.

1 transaction

$3,300

NORD, MATTHEW H. MR.

1 transaction

$3,300

POND, STEPHEN KNIGHT MR.

1 transaction

$3,300

REISS, MICHAEL MR.

1 transaction

$3,300

SABIN, ANDREW E. MR.

1 transaction

$3,300

SAMBUR, DAVID B. MR.

1 transaction

$3,300

SOUTH, REBECCA G. MRS.

1 transaction

$3,300

THOMPSON, DONALD O. MR. JR

1 transaction

$3,300

VIELEHR, BYRON C. MR.

1 transaction

$3,300

WANEK, JOYCE A. MS.

1 transaction

$3,300

WANEK, KAREN A. MRS.

1 transaction

$3,300

Donor Network - Rep. Foxx, Virginia [R-NC-5]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

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

Showing 39 nodes and 27 connections (41 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $81,150

Top Donors - Rep. Foxx, Virginia [R-NC-5]

Showing top 25 donors by contribution amount

5 Orgs20 Individuals

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 4 harmed.

−For-Profit Education & Student Loansconfidence 0.90
Section 3 mentions strengthening disclosure requirements relating to foreign gifts and contracts for institutions of higher education, which could lead to increased regulatory burdens and costs for for-profit education providers.
−Electric Utilitiesconfidence 0.80
Section 2 mentions disapproval of energy conservation standards for commercial refrigerators and freezers, which could lead to increased energy consumption and costs for electric utilities.
−Pipelines & Energy Infrastructureconfidence 0.70
Section 1 mentions disapproval of energy conservation standards for walk-in coolers and freezers, which could lead to increased energy demand and strain on energy infrastructure.
−Private Equity & Hedge Fundsconfidence 0.50
The bill's provisions on foreign gifts and contracts may affect private equity and hedge funds with investments in higher education or energy-related sectors.

Who funds the sponsor on these industries

For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Rep. Foxx, Virginia [R-NC-5])received from donors associated with that industry during the 2022–present cycles. Donations are not proof of intent — they are a record of who funds the people writing the law.

Industries this bill HARMS

Private Equity & Hedge Funds$67,782
from 26 contributions
- KLEINMAN, SCOTT M. MR.$6,600
- ZELTER, JAMES C. MR.$6,600
- ROWAN, MARC J. MR.$6,600
- SINGER, PAUL E. MR.$6,600
- MORONEY, JOSEPH A. MR.$5,300
For-Profit Education & Student Loans$3,110
from 1 contribution
- WARDELL, LISA W. MRS.$3,110

Project 2025 Policy Matches

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

Department of Energy and Related Commissions

Strong

Vector: 64%

Pages: 446-448AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HRES 242 aligns with Project 2025's Department of Energy objectives by seeking to block energy conservation standards that could increase regulatory burdens on industry, reflecting a shared goal of reducing federal overreach in energy efficiency regulation and promoting market-driven solutions."

Key themes:energy efficiency regulationDepartment of Energy oversightregulatory rollbackindustry compliance costsmarket-based energy policy

— 414 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 81. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Technology Transitions, “About Us: Mission,” https://www.energy.gov/ technologytransitions/mission-0 (accessed February 13, 2023). 82. Advanced Scientific Computing Research (ASCR); Basic Energy Sciences (BES); Biological and Environmental Research (BER); Fusion Energy Sciences (FES); High-Energy Physics (HEP); Nuclear Physics (NP); Isotope R&D and Production (IRP); and Accelerator R&D and Production (ARDAP). U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Chief Financial Officer, Department of Energy FY 2023 Congressional Budget Request, Volume 5, Science, April 2022, pp. 10–14, https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2022-05/doe-fy2023-budget-volume-5- science-v2.pdf (accessed March 1, 2023). 83. For example, the CHIPS and Science Act authorizes $50 billion for the Office of Science. U.S. Department of Energy, “Statement by Secretary Granholm on Congressional Passage of the CHIPS and Science Act,” July 28, 2022, https://www.energy.gov/articles/statement-secretary-granholm-congressional-passage-chips-and- science-act (accessed February 13, 2023). 84. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Chief Financial Officer, Department of Energy FY 2023 Congressional Budget Request, Volume 5, Science, April 2022, p. 7, https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2022-05/doe- fy2023-budget-volume-5-science-v2.pdf (accessed March 2, 2023). 85. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management, “Mission,” https://www.energy.gov/em/ mission (accessed March 1, 2023). 86. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management, “Cleanup Sites,” https://www.energy.gov/ em/cleanup-sites (accessed March 1, 2023). 87. U.S. Government Accountability Office, “DOE’s Environmental Liability,” GAO-21-585R, June 2021, p. 2, https:// www.gao.gov/assets/gao-21-585r.pdf (accessed March 13, 2023). 88. Chart, “EM’s Annual Spending and Estimated Environmental Liability (Fiscal Years 2011–2020),” in ibid., p. 1. 89. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Chief Financial Officer, Department of Energy FY 2023 Congressional Budget Request, Volume 6, Environmental Management, April 2022, p. 53, https://www.energy.gov/sites/ default/files/2022-09/doe-fy2023-budget-volume-6-em-v3.pdf (accessed March 1, 2023). 90. Ibid. 91. U.S. Government Accountability Office, Nuclear Waste: DOE Needs Greater Leadership Stability and Commitment to Accomplish Cleanup Mission, GAO-22-104805, https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-22-104805. pdf#:~:text=DOE%20Needs%20Greater%20Leadership%20Stability%20and%20Commitment%20to,May%20 2022%20GAO-22-104805%20United%20States%20Government%20Accountability%20Office May 2022, (accessed February 14, 2023). 92. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Chief Financial Officer, Department of Energy FY 2023 Congressional Budget Request, Budget in Brief, pp. 23 and 93. 93. H.R. 3809, Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, Public Law No. 97-425, Title I, Subtitle B. 94. Ibid., Title III, § 304. 95. See, for example, Chapter 4, “The Need for Geologic Disposal,” in Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future, Report to the Secretary of Energy, January 2012, pp. 27–31, https://www.energy.gov/sites/ default/files/2013/04/f0/brc_finalreport_jan2012.pdf (accessed February 14, 2023). 96. Press release, “DOE Announces $16 Million to Support Consent-Based Siting for Spent Nuclear Fuel,” U.S. Department of Energy, September 20, 2022, https://www.energy.gov/articles/doe-announces-16-million- support-consent-based-siting-spent-nuclear-fuel (accessed February 14, 2023). 97. U.S. Department of Energy, Agency Financial Report, Fiscal Year 2022, DOE/CF-0191, p. 58, https://www. energy.gov/sites/default/files/2022-11/fy-2022-doe-agency-financial-report.pdf (accessed March 13, 2023). 98. H.R. 3809, Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, Public Law No. 97-425, Title III, § 302. 99. Ibid., p. 57. 100. Table, “Department of Energy Comparative Organization by Congressional Control, FY 2023,” p. 5, in U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the Chief Financial Officer, “FY 2023 Budget Justification: Summary Budget Documents,” https://www.energy.gov/cfo/articles/fy-2023-budget-justification (accessed March 13, 2023). 101. U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, “Missions,” https://www.energy.gov/ nnsa/missions#:~:text=NNSA%20ensures%20the%20United%20States%20maintains%20a%20safe%2C,of%20 nuclear%20and%20radiological%20terrorism%20around%20the%20world (accessed March 2, 2023). — 415 — Department of Energy and Related Commissions 102. S. 1059, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000, Public Law 106-65, 106th Congress, October 5, 1999, §§ 3201–3299, https://www.congress.gov/106/plaws/publ65/PLAW-106publ65.pdf (accessed February 14, 2023). 103. See Geller, “U.S. Nuclear Weapons.” 104. U.S. Department of Defense, 2022 National Defense Strategy of the United States of America, Including the 2022 Nuclear Posture Review and the 2022 Missile Defense Review, pp. 3 and 20, https://media.defense. gov/2022/Oct/27/2003103845/-1/-1/1/2022-NATIONAL-DEFENSE-STRATEGY-NPR-MDR.PDF (accessed March 2, 2023). 105. U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, “Plutonium Pit Production,” https:// www.energy.gov/nnsa/plutonium-pit-production (accessed March 13, 2023). 106. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Chief Financial Officer, Department of Energy FY 2023 Congressional Budget Request, Budget in Brief, p. 27. 107. 16 U.S. Code § 824o, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/16/824o (accessed March 2, 2023). 108. 16 U.S. Code § 824o-1, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/16/824o-1 (accessed March 2, 2023). 109. For example, the California blackouts in August 2020 and the Texas blackouts and deaths in February 2021. 110. North American Electric Reliability Corporation, “Announcement: Extreme Weather Heightens Reliability Risks This Summer,” May 18, 2022, https://www.nerc.com/news/Headlines%20DL/May%2018%202022%20SRA%20 Announcement.pdf (accessed February 14, 2023). 111. Ethan Howland, “ISO-NE, ERCOT, MISO Face Possible Capacity Shortfalls in Extreme Winter Weather: FERC,” Utility Dive, October 21, 2022, https://www.utilitydive.com/news/FERC-iso-ne-ercot-miso-extreme-winter- weather-report/634682/ (accessed February 14, 2023), and North American Energy Reliability Corporation, “Announcement: NERC Warns Generation Resources Tight in Large Portion of North America This Winter,” November 17, 2022, https://www.nerc.com/news/Headlines%20DL/2022%20WRA%20Release%20final.pdf (accessed February 14, 2023). 112. Note that the challenges to the grid are coming mainly from subsidized renewable resources. Renewable resources have beneficial attributes, and the electric grid can benefit from embracing an all-of-the-above approach to power generation. 113. See U.S. Department of Energy, U.S. Energy Information Administration, “Glossary: Reserve Margin,” https:// www.eia.gov/tools/glossary/index.php?id=reserve_margin (accessed February 14, 2023). 114. Dan Frosch and Ginger Adams Otis, “North Carolina Power Outage Leaves 33,000 Without Electricity After Substation Attack,” The Wall Street Journal, December 5, 2022, https://www.wsj.com/articles/ attack-on-north-carolina-power-substations-leaves-45-000-without-electricity-11670200585 (accessed February 14, 2023). 115. U.S. Department of Energy, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, “Power Sales and Markets: RTOs and ISOs,” last updated May 3, 2022, https://www.ferc.gov/power-sales-and-markets/rtos-and-isos (accessed February 14, 2023). 116. Such as the blackouts and shortages in California (August 2020, summer 2022) and Texas (February 2021, summer 2022). 117. See notes 110 and 111, supra; North American Electric Reliability Corporation, “2022 Summer Reliability Assessment,” May 2022, https://www.nerc.com/pa/RAPA/ra/Reliability%20Assessments%20DL/NERC_ SRA_2022.pdf (accessed March 13, 2023); and North American Electric Reliability Corporation, “2022–2023 Winter Reliability Assessment,” November 2022, https://www.nerc.com/pa/RAPA/ra/Reliability%20 Assessments%20DL/NERC_WRA_2022.pdf (accessed March 13, 2023). 118. U.S. Department of Energy, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, “Building for the Future Through Electric Regional Transmission Planning and Cost Allocation and Generator Interconnection,” Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Federal Register, Vol. 87, No. 86 (May 4, 2022), pp. 26504–26611, https://www.govinfo.gov/ content/pkg/FR-2022-05-04/pdf/2022-08973.pdf (accessed February 14, 2023), and U.S. Department of Energy, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, “Improvements to Generator Interconnection Procedures and Agreements,” Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Federal Register, Vol. 87, No. 127 (July 5, 2022), pp. 39934–40032, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2022-07-05/pdf/2022-13470.pdf (accessed February 14, 2023).

Department of Energy and Related Commissions

Strong

Vector: 63%

Pages: 446-448AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HRES 242 directly aligns with Project 2025's Department of Energy objectives by seeking to block DOE energy conservation standards for appliances, reflecting a shared goal of reducing federal regulatory burdens on industry and promoting energy efficiency through market-driven rather than mandates approaches."

Key themes:Department of Energyenergy conservation standardsregulatory rollbackappliance efficiencyfederal oversight reduction

— 413 — Department of Energy and Related Commissions 62. U.S. Department of Energy, Federal Energy Management Program, “About the Federal Energy Management Program: Mission and Stakeholders,” https://www.energy.gov/eere/femp/about-federal-energy- management-program (accessed February 13, 2023). 63. See, for example, 42 U.S. Code § 8252, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/8252 (accessed February 13, 2023); § 8253, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/8253 (accessed February 13, 2023); § 8254, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/8254 (accessed February 13, 2023); § 8255, https://www.law. cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/8255 (accessed February 13, 2023); § 8256, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ text/42/8256 (accessed February 13, 2023); § 8257, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/8257 (accessed February 13, 2023); § 8258, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/8258 (accessed February 13, 2023); § 8259b, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/8258b (accessed February 13, 2023); § 15852, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/15852 (accessed February 13, 2023); and § 17143, https://www. law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/17143 (accessed February 13, 2023). 64. President Donald J. Trump, Executive Order 13834, “Efficient Federal Operations,” May 17, 2018, Federal Register, Vol. 83, No. 99 (May 22, 2018), pp. 23771–23774, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2018-05- 22/pdf/2018-11101.pdf (accessed February 28, 2023). 65. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, “FY 2022 Request Overview Briefing,” June 2021, p. 11, https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2021-06/FY2022-EERE-budget-request- energy-efficiency.pdf (accessed February 28, 2023). 66. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Chief Financial Officer, Department of Energy FY 2023 Congressional Budget Request, Budget in Brief, pp. 19 and 21. 67. U.S. Department of Energy, Clean Energy Corps, “Careers,” https://www.energy.gov/CleanEnergyCorps (accessed March 13, 2023). 68. Ibid. 69. U.S. Department of Energy, “DOE Kicks Off Recruitment to Support Implementation of Bipartisan Infrastructure Law,” January 13, 2022, https://www.energy.gov/articles/doe-kicks-recruitment-support- implementation-bipartisan-infrastructure-law (accessed March 13, 2023). 70. U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, “About EIA,” https://www.eia.gov/about/ (accessed February 13, 2023). 71. U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, “Levelized Costs of New Generation Resources in the Annual Energy Outlook 2022,” March 2022, p. 1, https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/electricity_ generation.pdf (accessed March 13, 2023). 72. U.S. Department of Energy, U.S. Energy Information Administration, Direct Federal Financial Interventions and Subsidies in Energy in Fiscal Year 2016, April 2018, https://www.eia.gov/analysis/requests/subsidy/pdf/subsidy. pdf (accessed March 1, 2023). 73. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Chief Financial Officer, Department of Energy FY 2023 Congressional Budget Request, Budget in Brief, pp. 19, 24, and 105. 74. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of International Affairs, “Mission: Our Mission,” https://www.energy.gov/ia/ our-mission (accessed February 13, 2023). 75. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of International Affairs, “Priorities: Our Objectives,” https://www.energy. gov/ia/priorities (accessed February 13, 2023). 76. Editorial Board, “Biden Signs Up for Climate Reparations,” The Wall Street Journal, November 20, 2022, https://www.wsj.com/articles/biden-signs-up-for-climate-change-reparations-europe-fund-un-john-kerry- poor-countries-bank-capitalism-11668974219 (accessed February 13, 2023). 77. U.S. Department of Energy, Arctic Energy Office, “About the Arctic Energy Office,” https://www.energy.gov/ arctic/about-arctic-energy-office (accessed March 1, 2023). 78. National Strategy for the Arctic Region, The White House, October 2022, https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp- content/uploads/2022/10/National-Strategy-for-the-Arctic-Region.pdf (accessed March 13, 2023). 79. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Intelligence and Counterintelligence website, https://www.energy.gov/ intelligence/office-intelligence-and-counterintelligence (accessed February 13, 2023). 80. See U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Policy, “Publications,” https://www.energy.gov/policy/office-policy (accessed February 13, 2023). — 414 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 81. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Technology Transitions, “About Us: Mission,” https://www.energy.gov/ technologytransitions/mission-0 (accessed February 13, 2023). 82. Advanced Scientific Computing Research (ASCR); Basic Energy Sciences (BES); Biological and Environmental Research (BER); Fusion Energy Sciences (FES); High-Energy Physics (HEP); Nuclear Physics (NP); Isotope R&D and Production (IRP); and Accelerator R&D and Production (ARDAP). U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Chief Financial Officer, Department of Energy FY 2023 Congressional Budget Request, Volume 5, Science, April 2022, pp. 10–14, https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2022-05/doe-fy2023-budget-volume-5- science-v2.pdf (accessed March 1, 2023). 83. For example, the CHIPS and Science Act authorizes $50 billion for the Office of Science. U.S. Department of Energy, “Statement by Secretary Granholm on Congressional Passage of the CHIPS and Science Act,” July 28, 2022, https://www.energy.gov/articles/statement-secretary-granholm-congressional-passage-chips-and- science-act (accessed February 13, 2023). 84. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Chief Financial Officer, Department of Energy FY 2023 Congressional Budget Request, Volume 5, Science, April 2022, p. 7, https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2022-05/doe- fy2023-budget-volume-5-science-v2.pdf (accessed March 2, 2023). 85. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management, “Mission,” https://www.energy.gov/em/ mission (accessed March 1, 2023). 86. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management, “Cleanup Sites,” https://www.energy.gov/ em/cleanup-sites (accessed March 1, 2023). 87. U.S. Government Accountability Office, “DOE’s Environmental Liability,” GAO-21-585R, June 2021, p. 2, https:// www.gao.gov/assets/gao-21-585r.pdf (accessed March 13, 2023). 88. Chart, “EM’s Annual Spending and Estimated Environmental Liability (Fiscal Years 2011–2020),” in ibid., p. 1. 89. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Chief Financial Officer, Department of Energy FY 2023 Congressional Budget Request, Volume 6, Environmental Management, April 2022, p. 53, https://www.energy.gov/sites/ default/files/2022-09/doe-fy2023-budget-volume-6-em-v3.pdf (accessed March 1, 2023). 90. Ibid. 91. U.S. Government Accountability Office, Nuclear Waste: DOE Needs Greater Leadership Stability and Commitment to Accomplish Cleanup Mission, GAO-22-104805, https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-22-104805. pdf#:~:text=DOE%20Needs%20Greater%20Leadership%20Stability%20and%20Commitment%20to,May%20 2022%20GAO-22-104805%20United%20States%20Government%20Accountability%20Office May 2022, (accessed February 14, 2023). 92. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Chief Financial Officer, Department of Energy FY 2023 Congressional Budget Request, Budget in Brief, pp. 23 and 93. 93. H.R. 3809, Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, Public Law No. 97-425, Title I, Subtitle B. 94. Ibid., Title III, § 304. 95. See, for example, Chapter 4, “The Need for Geologic Disposal,” in Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future, Report to the Secretary of Energy, January 2012, pp. 27–31, https://www.energy.gov/sites/ default/files/2013/04/f0/brc_finalreport_jan2012.pdf (accessed February 14, 2023). 96. Press release, “DOE Announces $16 Million to Support Consent-Based Siting for Spent Nuclear Fuel,” U.S. Department of Energy, September 20, 2022, https://www.energy.gov/articles/doe-announces-16-million- support-consent-based-siting-spent-nuclear-fuel (accessed February 14, 2023). 97. U.S. Department of Energy, Agency Financial Report, Fiscal Year 2022, DOE/CF-0191, p. 58, https://www. energy.gov/sites/default/files/2022-11/fy-2022-doe-agency-financial-report.pdf (accessed March 13, 2023). 98. H.R. 3809, Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, Public Law No. 97-425, Title III, § 302. 99. Ibid., p. 57. 100. Table, “Department of Energy Comparative Organization by Congressional Control, FY 2023,” p. 5, in U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the Chief Financial Officer, “FY 2023 Budget Justification: Summary Budget Documents,” https://www.energy.gov/cfo/articles/fy-2023-budget-justification (accessed March 13, 2023). 101. U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, “Missions,” https://www.energy.gov/ nnsa/missions#:~:text=NNSA%20ensures%20the%20United%20States%20maintains%20a%20safe%2C,of%20 nuclear%20and%20radiological%20terrorism%20around%20the%20world (accessed March 2, 2023).

Department of Education

Moderate

Vector: 63%

Pages: 386-388AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HRES 242's provision to strengthen disclosure and restrict foreign gifts/contracts in higher education directly aligns with Project 2025's goal of confronting Chinese Communist Party influence and enforcing Section 117 of the HEA; the energy conservation standards component is unrelated to the Department of Education policy."

Key themes:foreign gifts disclosurehigher education accountabilitySection 117 enforcementcountering foreign influence

— 354 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise If privatizing student lending is not feasible, then the next Administration should consider the following reforms: l Switch to fair-value accounting from FCRA accounting. l Consolidate all federal loan programs into one new program that a) utilizes income-driven repayment, b) includes no interest rate subsidies or loan forgiveness, c) includes annual and aggregate limits on borrowing, and d) includes skin in the game to hold colleges accountable. l Eliminate Grad PLUS loans (for graduate students) and Parent PLUS loans (for parents of undergraduates). Graduate students are already eligible for unsubsidized Stafford student loans; Grad PLUS loans are redundant. They also lack some of the safeguards of Stafford loans, such as annual and aggregate borrowing limits. Parent PLUS loans are also redundant because there are many privately provided alternatives available. l The Public Service Loan Forgiveness program, which prioritizes government and public sector work over private sector employment, should be terminated. Whatever Congress chooses to do with future loans, there is still the question of the government’s responsible stewardship of the existing student loan portfolio—a substantial taxpayer asset. The current Administration has recklessly engaged in the policy fetish of forgiving and canceling student loans with abandon. l The next Administration should work with Congress to amend the HEA to ensure that no Administration engages in this kind of abuse in the future. l Specifically, the new Administration should urge the Congress to amend the HEA to abrogate, or substantially reduce, the power of the Secretary to cancel, compromise, discharge, or forgive the principal balances of Title IV student loans, as well as to modify in any material way the repayment amounts or terms of Title IV student loans. l Further, the next Administration should propose that Congress amend the HEA to remove the department’s authority to forgive loans based on borrower defense to repayment; instead, the department — 355 — Department of Education should be authorized to discharge loans only in instances where clear and convincing evidence exists to demonstrate that an educational institution engaged in fraud toward a borrower in connection with his or her enrollment in the institution and the student’s educational program or activity at the institution. Cap indirect costs at universities. Currently, the federal government pays a por- tion of the overhead expenses associated with university-based research. Known as “indirect costs,” these reimbursements cross-subsidize leftist agendas and the research of billion-dollar organizations such as Google and the Ford Foundation. Universities also use this influx of cash to pay for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) efforts. To correct course, l Congress should cap the indirect cost rate paid to universities so that it does not exceed the lowest rate a university accepts from a private organization to fund research efforts. This market- based reform would help reduce federal taxpayer subsidization of leftist agendas. NEW REGULATIONS Attacking the Accreditation Cartel For a college to participate in federal financial aid programs, it must be accred- ited, but accreditors have been abusing their quasi-regulatory power to impose non-educational requirements and ideological preferences on colleges. l The Secretary of Education should refuse to recognize all accreditors that abuse their power. l New accreditors should also be encouraged to start up. Confronting the Chinese Communist Party’s Influence on Higher Education According to media reports, more than 100 universities in the U.S. received nearly $100 billion in gifts and grants from China-based sources between 2013 and 2020. Much of this money derives from the Chinese Communist Party and its proxies. The next Administration must l Reverse the Biden Administration’s refusal to enforce Section 117 of the HEA, which directs colleges and universities to report gifts from, and contracts with, sources outside the U.S. worth $250,000 or more.

Department of Education

Weak

Vector: 63%

Pages: 383-385AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HRES 242 focuses on blocking energy efficiency standards and increasing transparency of foreign gifts/contracts in higher education, while the Project 2025 excerpt emphasizes school choice, state opt-out of federal programs, and accreditation reform to limit DEI mandates. The only modest connection is that both involve modifications to the Higher Education Act, but their substantive goals differ significantly."

Key themes:Higher Education Actforeign influencedisclosure requirementsregulation

— 351 — Department of Education as the Educational Choice for Children Act. This bill would create a federal scholarship tax credit that would incentivize donors to contribute to nonprofit scholarship granting organizations (SGOs). Eligible families could then use that funding from the SGOs for their children’s education expenses including private school tuition, tutoring, and instructional materials. ADDITIONAL K–12 REFORMS Allowing States to Opt Out of Federal Education Programs. States should be able to opt out of federal education programs such as the Academic Partnerships Lead Us to Success (APLUS) Act. Much of the red tape and regulations that hinder local school districts are handed down from Washington. This regulatory burden far exceeds the federal government’s less than 10 percent financing share of K–12 education. In the most recent fiscal year (FY 2022), states and localities financed 93 percent of K–12 education costs, and the federal government just 7 percent. That 7 percent share should not allow the federal government to dictate state and local education policy. l To restore state and local control of education and reduce the bureaucratic and compliance burden, Congress should allow states to opt out of the dozens of federal K–12 education programs authorized under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, and instead allow states to put their share of federal funding toward any lawful education purpose under state law. This policy has been advanced over the years via a proposal known as the Academic Partnerships Lead Us to Success (APLUS) Act. HIGHER EDUCATION REFORM HEA: Accreditation Reform Congress established two primary responsibilities for the U.S. Department of Education in the HEA: 1) to ensure the “administrative capacity and financial responsibility” of colleges and universities that accept Title IV funds; and 2) to ensure the quality of those institutions. Congress did not endow the Department of Education with the authority to involve itself in academic quality issues relating to colleges and universities that participate in the Title IV student aid program; the HEA allows the agency only to recognize accreditors, which are then supposed to provide quality assurance measures. Unfortunately, the Biden Administration has followed closely in the footsteps of the Obama Administration by engaging in a politically motivated and incon- sistent administration of the accrediting agency recognition process. As a result, accreditors have transformed into de facto government agents. Despite claims by — 352 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise the department and accreditation agencies that accreditation is voluntary, the fact that Americans are denied access to an otherwise widely available entitle- ment benefit if the institution “elects” to not be accredited makes accreditation anything but voluntary. Today, accreditation determines whether Americans can access federal student aid benefits, transfer academic credits, enroll in higher-level degree programs, and even qualify for federal employment. Unnecessarily focused on schools in a specific geographic region, institutional accreditation reviews have also become wildly expensive audits by academic “peers” that stifle innovation and discourage new institutions of higher education. Of par- ticular concern are efforts by many accreditation agencies to leverage their Title IV (student loans and grants) gatekeeper roles to force institutions to adopt policies that have nothing to do with academic quality assurance and student outcomes. One egregious example of this is the extent to which accreditors have forced col- leges and universities, many of them faith-based institutions, to adopt diversity, equity, and inclusion policies that conflict with federal civil rights laws, state laws, and the institutional mission and culture of the schools. Perhaps more distress- ingly, accreditors, while professing support for academic freedom and campus free speech, have presided over a precipitous decline in both over the past decade. Despite maintaining criteria that demand such policies, accreditors have done nothing to dampen the illiberal chill that has swept across American campuses over the past decade. The current system is not working. A radical overhaul of the HEA’s accreditation requirements is thus in order. The next Administration should work with Congress to amend the HEA and should consider the following reforms: l Prohibit accreditation agencies from leveraging their Title IV gatekeeper role to mandate that educational institutions adopt diversity, equity, and inclusion policies. l Protect the sovereignty of states to decide governance and leadership issues for their state-supported colleges and universities by prohibiting accreditation agencies from intruding upon the governance of state-supported educational institutions. l Protect faith-based institutions by prohibiting accreditation agencies from: 1. Requiring standards and criteria that undermine the religious beliefs of, or require policies or conduct that conflict with, the religious mission or religious beliefs of the institution; and

Department of Agriculture

Minimal

Vector: 63%

Pages: 347-349AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HRES 242 focuses on energy conservation standards for appliances and foreign gift disclosure in higher education, while the Project 2025 policy excerpt pertains to USDA conservation programs, school meals, and agricultural land use. There is no thematic or policy overlap between the bill and the provided policy section."

— 315 — Department of Agriculture 79. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, “WIC Data Tables,” December 9, 2022, https:// www.fns.usda.gov/pd/wic-program (accessed December 16, 2022). 80. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, “Regulations and Information on the Manufacture and Distribution of Infant Formula,” May 16, 2022, https://www.fda.gov/food/infant-formula-guidance-documents-regulatory- information/regulations-and-information-manufacture-and-distribution-infant-formula (accessed December 14, 2022). 81. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, “History of the National School Lunch Program,” January 17, 2008, https://www.fns.usda.gov/nslp/program-history (accessed December 14, 2022). 82. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, “School Breakfast Program History,” July 24, 2013, https://www.fns.usda.gov/sbp/program-history (accessed December 14, 2022), and U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, “History of the National School Lunch Program.” 83. Crystal FitzSimons, “Free School Meals for All Is the Key to Supporting Education and Health Outcomes,” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, Vol 41, No. 1 (2022), pp. 358–364, https://econpapers.repec.org/ article/wlyjpamgt/v_3a41_3ay_3a2022_3ai_3a1_3ap_3a358-364.htm (accessed December 14, 2022). 84. Jonathan Butcher and Vijay Menon, “Returning to the Intent of Government School Meals: Helping Students in Need,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 3399, March 22, 2019, https://www.heritage.org/sites/ default/files/2019-03/BG3399.pdf. 85. Daren Bakst and Jonathan Butcher, “A Critical Fix to the Federal Overreach on School Meals,” Heritage Foundation Issue Brief No. 4976, July 11, 2019, https://www.heritage.org/hunger-and-food-programs/report/ critical-fix-the-federal-overreach-school-meals. 86. Ibid., and U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, “Community Eligibility Provision,” April 19, 2019, https://www.fns.usda.gov/cn/community-eligibility-provision (accessed December 16, 2022). 87. See Payment Accuracy, https://www.paymentaccuracy.gov/ (accessed December 16, 2022). 88. Payment Accuracy, “Payment Integrity Scorecard,” https://www.cfo.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/Q3/ FNS%20National%20School%20Lunch%20Program%20(NSLP)%20Payments%20Integrity%20Scorecard%20 FY%202022%20Q3.pdf (accessed December 14, 2022). 89. U.S. Government Accountability Office, “School Meals Programs: USDA Has Reported Taking Some Steps to Reduce Improper Payments But Should Comprehensively Assess Fraud Risks,” GAO–19–389, May 21, 2022, https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-19-389 (accessed December 14, 2022). 90. Payment Accuracy, “Payment Integrity Scorecard.” 91. White House, “Fact Sheet: The American Families Plan,” April 28, 2021, https://www.whitehouse.gov/ briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/04/28/fact-sheet-the-american-families-plan/ (accessed December 14, 2022). 92. Universal School Meals Program Act of 2021, S. 1530, 117th Cong., 1st Sess., https://www.congress.gov/ bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/1530 (accessed December 14, 2022). 93. See, for example, U.S. Department of Agriculture, “Find Meals for Kids When Schools Are Closed,” Food and Nutrition Service, September 22, 2022, https://www.fns.usda.gov/meals4kids (accessed December 16, 2022), and U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, “Seamless Summer and Other Options for School,” July 16, 2013, https://www.fns.usda.gov/sfsp/seamless-summer-and-other-options-schools (accessed December 16, 2022). 94. Tom Driscoll, “From the Field: Farmers Are the Original Conservationists,” National Farmers Union, August 30, 2017, https://nfu.org/2017/08/30/from-the-field-farmers-are-the-original-conservationists/ (accessed December 16, 2022). 95. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency, “Conservation Programs,” https://www.fsa.usda.gov/ programs-and-services/conservation-programs/index (accessed December 16, 2022), and U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, “Programs and Initiatives,” https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/ programs-initiatives (accessed December 16, 2022). 96. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency, “Conservation Reserve Program: About the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP),” https://www.fsa.usda.gov/programs-and-services/conservation- programs/conservation-reserve-program/ (accessed December 16, 2022). — 316 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 97. American Bakers Association et al., letter to U.S. Department of Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, March 23, 2022, https://www.dropbox.com/s/yfyv04ilkom11zd/USDA%20Letter%20to%20Secretary%20Vilsack%20on%20 Tools%20to%20Address%20Global%20Commodity%20Supply%20Challenges%203.23.22_.pdf?dl=0 (accessed December 15, 2022). It is also necessary to increase food production to mitigate high food inflation. Approximately 25 percent of idled land is considered prime farmland. Therefore, one-quarter of idled land is merely idling, not producing food—and this does not include other land that may viably be used for food production. The Conservation Reserve Program should be eliminated. There are also two issues connected to property rights and fairness that should be addressed: challenging NRCS determinations and problems with USDA easements. To be eligible for many USDA programs, farmers must comply with certain conservation provisions enforced by NRCS. Conservation compliance of wetlands and highly erodible lands consist of federal restrictions that prevent farmers from using parts of their property. If farmers plant crops or modify the areas federal officials deem protected, farmers can lose all access to USDA programs and support. For farmers, there are real, practical concerns to challenging NRCS determinations, including the time and costs of challenging the federal bureaucracy. NRCS is empowered to declare areas wetlands and highly erodible areas, which are therefore off limits for farming. If these wetland-or-erodible-declared areas are used in a manner deemed unacceptable by federal officials, NRCS may revoke access to federal resources and subsidies by making technical determinations that carry potential penalties. There must be a fair and reasonable process for farmers to challenge such actions. See Daren Bakst, “Food Price Inflation Continues to Worsen. Here’s What Should Be Done About It,” The Daily Signal, April 25, 2022, https:// www.dailysignal.com/2022/04/25/food-price-inflation-continuing-to-worsen-heres-what-should-be-done- about-it/ (accessed December 15, 2022); American Bakers Association et.al., letter to Vilsack; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, “Conservation Compliance Appeals Process,” https://www. nrcs.usda.gov/getting-assistance/compliance/conservation-compliance-appeals-process (accessed December 15, 2022); and Chris Bennett, “Regulatory Hell: Farmer and Veteran Wins 10-Year Wetlands Fight With Government,” AG Web, August 30, 2021, https://www.agweb.com/news/crops/crop-production/regulatory-hell-farmer-and- veteran-wins-10-year-wetlands-fight (accessed December 15, 2022). 98. Fortunately, there are already resources available to help states establish their own wetlands conservation programs. One particular example, the American Legislative Exchange Council’s Wetlands Mapping and Protection Act model policy, is available for states to define the procedures, guidelines, and administration of wetlands programs. American Legislative Exchange Council, “Wetlands Mapping and Protection Act,” November 16, 2017, https://alec.org/model-policy/wetlands-mapping-and-protection-act/ (accessed December 16, 2022). The new Administration should focus on best practices instead of imposing prescriptive federal practices. It should support the policies contained within the “NRCS Wetland Compliance and Appeals Reform Act” and modify NRCS compliance rules to protect farmers and ranchers by adding protections against regulatory overreach—such as banning the practice of re-engaging farmers in new technical determinations appeals processes for the same areas of their farms. See NRCS Wetland Compliance and Appeals Reform Act, S. 4931, 117th Cong., 2nd Sess., https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/4931?s=1&r=8 (accessed December 15, 2022). 99. Ibid 100. See, for example, Daren Bakst and Jeremy Dalrymple, “Reducing Federal Barriers for the Sale of Meat,” Heritage Foundation Issue Brief No. 5078, June 1, 2020, https://www.heritage.org/agriculture/report/ reducing-federal-barriers-the-sale-meat, and U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food Safety and Inspection Service, “State Inspection Programs,” updated January 12, 2023, https://www.fsis.usda.gov/inspection/state- inspection-programs (accessed December 15, 2022). 101. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food Safety and Inspection Service, “Cooperative Interstate Shipping Program,” September 7, 2022, https://www.fsis.usda.gov/inspection/state-inspection-programs/cooperative- interstate-shipping-program (accessed December 15, 2022). 102. U.S. Department of Agriculture, “State Inspection Programs.” 103. The Senate bill removes obstacles for both meat and poultry. The House version does not appear to cover poultry. New Markets for State-Inspected Meat and Poultry Act of 2021, S. 107, 117th Cong., 1st Sess., https:// www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/107#:~:text=This%20bill%20allows%20meat%20and,be%20 sold%20in%20interstate%20commerce (accessed December 15, 2022), and Expanding Markets for State- Inspected Meat Processors Act of 2021, H.R. 1998, 117th Cong., 1st Sess., https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th- congress/house-bill/1998 (accessed December 15, 2022).

Showing 3 of 5 policy matches

About These Correlations

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

Related Bills

Other Bills by Rep. Foxx, Virginia

Protect Economic and Academic Freedom Act of 2026

119/hr/4795

Unfunded Mandates Accountability and Transparency Act of 2025

119/hr/580

Transparency in Billing Act of 2026

119/hr/8684

Rep. Foxx, Virginia [R-NC-5]

$81,150 raised

85% match to Project 2025

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Introduced

Committee Review

Floor Action

Passed House

Senate Review

Passed Congress

Presidential Action

Became Law

Bill Summary

Related Topics

Related Topics

Related Topics

Related Topics

Related Topics

Related Topics

Related Topics

Related Topics

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Donor Network - Rep. Foxx, Virginia [R-NC-5]

Top Donors - Rep. Foxx, Virginia [R-NC-5]

Industry Impact

Who funds the sponsor on these industries

Industries this bill HARMS

Project 2025 Policy Matches

Department of Energy and Related Commissions

Department of Energy and Related Commissions

Department of Education

Department of Education

Department of Agriculture

About These Correlations

Full Policy Text

Related Bills

Other Bills by Rep. Foxx, Virginia

Similar Topics