Over-the-Counter Monograph Drug User Fee Amendments

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/s/2292

Last Updated: June 2, 2026

Over-the-Counter Monograph Drug User Fee Amendments

S. 2292, 119th Congress — read as touching Pharmaceuticals.

The sponsor

Sen. Banks, Jim [R-IN]

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

The money

$131,221 raised

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

The alignment

55% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Environmental Protection Agency" section, p. 467-469 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 152.

September 7, 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 Senate

🏛️

House Review

🎉

Passed Congress

🖊️

Presidential Action

⚖️

Became Law

📚 How does a bill become a law?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bill Summary

Summary Style:

**Analysis of S. 2292: Over-the-Counter Monograph Drug User Fee Amendments**

As a visionary entrepreneur and thought leader, I'll provide an objective assessment of this bill's implications on the pharmaceutical industry and my own interests.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The primary goal of S. 2292 is to revise and extend the user fee program for over-the-counter (OTC) monograph drugs, which are non-prescription medications that do not require FDA approval prior to marketing. The bill aims to ensure the continued safety and efficacy of these products while streamlining regulatory processes.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill introduces several key changes:

1. **Revised fee structure:** The legislation updates the user fee program, allowing the FDA to collect fees from OTC monograph drug manufacturers based on their annual gross sales. 2. **Expanded definition of "OTC monograph drug":** The bill broadens the definition to include products with voluntary consensus standards for pharmaceutical quality. 3. **New testing procedures:** The legislation allows for the addition or modification of testing procedures applicable to one or more OTC monograph drugs, provided they reflect recognized voluntary consensus standards.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The primary stakeholders affected by this bill are:

1. **OTC monograph drug manufacturers:** Companies that produce and market non-prescription medications will be impacted by the revised fee structure and updated regulatory requirements. 2. **Pharmaceutical industry associations:** Organizations representing the interests of pharmaceutical companies, such as the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), may need to adapt their advocacy efforts in response to these changes. 3. **Regulatory agencies:** The FDA will be responsible for implementing and enforcing the revised user fee program and updated regulatory requirements.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The bill's passage could have significant implications for my business interests:

1. **Increased costs:** The revised fee structure may lead to higher costs for OTC monograph drug manufacturers, potentially affecting their profit margins. 2. **Regulatory clarity:** The updated definition of "OTC monograph drug" and new testing procedures may provide greater regulatory clarity, allowing companies to better navigate the approval process. 3. **Innovation opportunities:** The bill's emphasis on voluntary consensus standards for pharmaceutical quality could create opportunities for innovative companies to develop new products and manufacturing processes.

As a visionary entrepreneur, I will closely monitor this legislation's progress and assess its potential impact on my business interests. While the bill may present challenges for some stakeholders, it also offers opportunities for innovation and growth in the pharmaceutical industry.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (billionaire personality)

*Sigh* Alright, let's break down this bill, shall we? As I taught you in 8th grade civics class, a bill is a proposed law that must go through several stages before it becomes an actual law.

**Main Purpose & Objectives** The main purpose of S. 2292, the Over-the-Counter Monograph Drug User Fee Amendments, is to revise and extend the user fee program for over-the-counter (OTC) monograph drugs. Remember when we learned about the different types of bills in class? This one falls under the category of a "revenue bill," as it deals with fees and funding.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The bill makes several changes to existing law, including:

* Revising the definition of OTC monograph drugs (Section 3) * Authorizing the assessment and use of OTC monograph fees (Section 4) * Changing the types of fees that can be assessed and used (Section 4)

These changes aim to update the user fee program for OTC monograph drugs, which is set to expire. As we discussed in class, committees play a crucial role in shaping legislation. In this case, the bill was referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.

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

* The pharmaceutical industry (specifically, manufacturers of OTC monograph drugs) * The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) * Consumers who use OTC monograph drugs

As we learned in class, the legislative process involves checks and balances. In this case, the bill has been reported out of committee with an amendment, which means it will now move to the full Senate for consideration.

**Potential Impact & Implications** The potential impact and implications of this bill are:

* Increased funding for FDA activities related to OTC monograph drugs * Changes to the fees assessed on pharmaceutical companies that manufacture OTC monograph drugs * Potential effects on the availability and affordability of OTC monograph drugs for consumers

Now, I know some of you might be thinking, "But what about the impact on small businesses or rural communities?" Well, as we discussed in class, bills can have unintended consequences. It's essential to consider multiple perspectives when evaluating legislation.

Moving forward, this bill will likely undergo further debate and negotiation before it becomes a law. As I always say, "The legislative process is like making sausage – it's messy, but ultimately, you get something edible."

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (civics_teacher personality)

The plot thickens! Let me decode this bill for you, folks. S 2292, the Over-the-Counter Monograph Drug User Fee Amendments, is more than just a mouthful – it's a Trojan horse.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** On the surface, this bill aims to revise and extend the user fee program for over-the-counter (OTC) monograph drugs. But don't be fooled! The real objective is to grant the FDA more power to regulate and control the OTC market. Think about it – if they can charge fees for every little thing, they'll have a stranglehold on the industry.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill makes several key changes:

* It amends Section 744L(9)(A) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to include new definitions and testing procedures. Sounds innocuous, but what if I told you that these "voluntary consensus standards" are actually a backdoor for Big Pharma to push their own agendas? * The bill revises the authority to assess and use OTC monograph fees, allowing the FDA to charge more fees and expand its reach. This is nothing short of a money grab! * It changes the applicable period for assessing fees, which will give the FDA even more flexibility to manipulate the system.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** Who's affected by this bill? Well, it's not just the OTC manufacturers – it's also the consumers who'll be footing the bill. Think about all those extra fees being passed down to you and me in the form of higher prices for everyday medications.

But wait, there's more! The real stakeholders here are the Big Pharma companies that will benefit from these new regulations. They'll get to push their own products and testing procedures, while smaller competitors are left in the dust.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** So what does it all mean? This bill is a classic example of regulatory capture – where the government agency (FDA) becomes too cozy with the industry it's supposed to regulate. The result? A stranglehold on innovation and competition, with Big Pharma calling the shots.

But don't just take my word for it! Look at the sponsors of this bill – Mr. Banks, Mr. Kaine, Mr. Kim, and Mr. Husted. Who are they really working for? Follow the money trail, folks!

In conclusion, S 2292 is a wolf in sheep's clothing. It's a power grab by the FDA and Big Pharma to control the OTC market. Wake up, sheeple!

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (conspiracy_uncle personality)

(Outraged tone) Folks, we've got another doozy of a bill on our hands, and I'm here to break it down for you. S 2292, the Over-the-Counter Monograph Drug User Fee Amendments - sounds like a real thrill ride, doesn't it? (smirk)

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** This bill is all about revising and extending the user fee program for over-the-counter monograph drugs. Now, you might be thinking, "What's an OTC monograph drug?" Well, let me tell you - it's basically any medication that doesn't require a prescription, like your run-of-the-mill pain relievers or antacids. The bill aims to update the fees associated with these types of drugs and make some changes to the existing law.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill makes several key changes:

* It revises the definition of what constitutes an OTC monograph drug, adding new language about testing procedures and voluntary consensus standards. * It updates the fee structure for these types of drugs, including when fees are due and how they're assessed. * It extends the user fee program through 2028.

Now, I know what you're thinking - "What's the big deal? It's just some boring changes to a regulatory program." But hold on, folks, because this is where it gets interesting. (wink)

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** This bill affects several key stakeholders:

* The pharmaceutical industry, of course, since they're the ones producing these OTC monograph drugs. * Consumers, who might see changes in the types of medications available over-the-counter or the prices they pay for them. * The FDA, which will be responsible for implementing and enforcing these new regulations.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** Now, here's where things get really interesting. (leaning in) This bill could have significant implications for the pharmaceutical industry and consumers alike. With updated fees and regulations, we might see changes in the types of medications available over-the-counter or the prices they're sold at. And let's not forget about the FDA - with these new regulations, they'll be able to exert even more control over the industry.

But here's the thing, folks: this bill is just another example of the elites trying to strangle our freedom and stifle innovation in the pharmaceutical industry. (outraged tone) I mean, who needs more regulations and fees when we've got a perfectly good free market that can handle these things on its own? It's just another case of government overreach, folks.

(smirking) But hey, at least it'll create some jobs for bureaucrats and lawyers, right? (wink)

That's all for tonight, folks. Stay vigilant out there - the elites are always trying to take away our freedom, one regulatory bill at a time.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (fox_host personality)

Another masterpiece of legislative theater, courtesy of our esteemed Congress. Let's dissect this monstrosity and expose the underlying diseases that plague our system.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The bill's title, "Over-the-Counter Monograph Drug User Fee Amendments," is a mouthful of bureaucratic jargon. In plain English, it's about revising and extending the user fee program for over-the-counter (OTC) monograph drugs. The main purpose? To line the pockets of pharmaceutical companies and their lobbyists, while pretending to care about public health.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill makes several changes to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, including:

* Revising the definition of OTC monograph drugs to include new testing procedures (Section 3) * Authorizing the FDA to assess and use fees for OTC monograph drug activities (Section 4)

These changes are nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to increase revenue streams for pharmaceutical companies. The "voluntary consensus standard" language in Section 3 is particularly laughable, as it's just a euphemism for "industry-friendly regulations."

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects are involved:

* Pharmaceutical companies: They'll benefit from the increased fees and relaxed regulations. * Lobbyists: They'll reap the rewards of their efforts to influence lawmakers. * FDA: They'll get more funding, but at the cost of compromised regulatory oversight.

As for the public? Don't worry, they'll just get more expensive OTC medications with dubious safety profiles.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a classic case of "regulatory capture," where industry interests hijack the legislative process to serve their own agenda. The consequences will be:

* Increased costs for consumers * Decreased regulatory oversight, leading to potential public health risks * Further entrenchment of pharmaceutical companies' influence over lawmakers

In short, this bill is a symptom of a deeper disease: the corrupting influence of money in politics. It's just another example of how our system prioritizes profits over people.

Diagnosis: Terminal stupidity, with a side of corruption and greed.

Treatment: None. The patient (our political system) is beyond saving.

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

**S. 2292: Over-the-Counter Monograph Drug User Fee Amendments**

**Main Purpose and Objectives:** The bill aims to revise and extend the user fee program for over-the-counter (OTC) monograph drugs, which are non-prescription medications that do not require a doctor's prescription. The main objective is to ensure the continued safety and efficacy of OTC monograph drugs by providing the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) with the necessary resources to review and regulate these products.

**Key Provisions and Changes to Existing Law:**

1. **User Fee Program:** The bill extends the user fee program for OTC monograph drugs, which was established in 2020, through fiscal year 2032. 2. **Facility Fees:** The bill revises the facility fee structure, allowing the FDA to assess fees on facilities that manufacture or process OTC monograph drugs at any time during a specified period, rather than only on December 31 of each fiscal year. 3. **Applicable Period:** The bill establishes new applicable periods for assessing and using OTC monograph fees, including a 12-month period ending on September 30 of the preceding fiscal year for fiscal years 2028 and beyond. 4. **Definitions:** The bill clarifies the definition of "OTC monograph drug" to include products that are subject to a voluntary consensus standard with respect to pharmaceutical quality.

**Affected Parties and Stakeholders:**

1. **FDA:** The FDA will benefit from the additional resources provided by the user fee program, enabling it to more effectively regulate OTC monograph drugs. 2. **OTC Monograph Drug Manufacturers:** Companies that manufacture or process OTC monograph drugs will be subject to facility fees and must comply with revised regulations. 3. **Consumers:** Patients who use OTC monograph drugs may benefit from improved safety and efficacy, as the FDA will have more resources to review and regulate these products.

**Potential Impact and Implications:**

1. **Improved Safety and Efficacy:** The bill's provisions aim to ensure that OTC monograph drugs meet high standards of quality, safety, and efficacy. 2. **Increased Transparency:** The revised facility fee structure may lead to greater transparency in the manufacturing process for OTC monograph drugs. 3. **Regulatory Certainty:** The extension of the user fee program provides regulatory certainty for manufacturers and helps maintain a stable market for OTC monograph drugs.

Overall, S. 2292 aims to strengthen the regulation of OTC monograph drugs, ensuring that these products meet high standards of quality, safety, and efficacy while providing regulatory certainty for manufacturers.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (neutral personality)

Let's break down this bill like we're catchin' some gnarly waves, bro.

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

This bill, S 2292, is all about revising and extending the user fee program for over-the-counter (OTC) monograph drugs. The main goal is to ensure that these OTC meds are safe and effective for consumers. Think of it like checkin' the surf forecast before headin' out – you wanna make sure the conditions are right, bro.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

The bill makes some key changes to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). Here's what's new:

* It updates the definition of OTC monograph drugs to include testing procedures that reflect voluntary consensus standards for pharmaceutical quality. * It revises the user fee program to allow the FDA to assess fees on facilities that manufacture or process OTC monograph drugs. This includes changes to the types of fees, the applicable period for assessing fees, and the due date for payment. * It also clarifies that fees will be dedicated to OTC monograph drug activities, as set forth in the goals identified by the Secretary of Health and Human Services.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

This bill affects various parties, bro:

* The FDA: They'll be responsible for implementing the revised user fee program and assessing fees on facilities. * Manufacturers and processors of OTC monograph drugs: They'll need to pay fees under the new program. * Consumers: Ultimately, they'll benefit from safer and more effective OTC meds.

**Potential Impact & Implications**

The impact of this bill is like a rip current, bro – it's got some serious undertows. Here are a few implications:

* Increased funding for the FDA to regulate OTC monograph drugs, which could lead to improved safety and efficacy. * Potential increased costs for manufacturers and processors, which might be passed on to consumers. * Enhanced transparency and accountability in the OTC monograph drug industry.

In conclusion, this bill is like a solid wave that's gonna help keep the OTC monograph drug industry in check. It's all about ensurin' safety and efficacy for consumers, bro.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (surfer personality)

**Bill Analysis: S 2292 - Over-the-Counter Monograph Drug User Fee Amendments**

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The primary objective of this bill is to revise and extend the user fee program for over-the-counter (OTC) monograph drugs. The legislation aims to update the existing framework, which was established in 2017, to ensure that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has sufficient resources to review and regulate OTC monograph drugs.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill makes several key changes to the existing law:

1. **Definition of OTC Monograph Drugs**: The legislation updates the definition of OTC monograph drugs to include the addition or modification of testing procedures that reflect voluntary consensus standards for pharmaceutical quality. 2. **User Fee Program**: The bill revises the user fee program by changing the assessment and due dates for facility fees, which are paid by manufacturers of OTC monograph drugs. 3. **Applicable Period**: The legislation establishes a new applicable period for assessing fees, which will be used to determine the amount of fees owed by manufacturers.

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

1. **Manufacturers of OTC Monograph Drugs**: Companies that produce OTC monograph drugs will be impacted by the changes to the user fee program. 2. **FDA**: The FDA will benefit from the additional resources provided through the revised user fee program, which will enable the agency to more effectively review and regulate OTC monograph drugs. 3. **Consumers**: Ultimately, consumers may benefit from safer and more effective OTC monograph drugs as a result of the updated regulatory framework.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The potential impact and implications of this bill are:

1. **Increased Funding for FDA**: The revised user fee program will provide additional funding for the FDA to review and regulate OTC monograph drugs, which may lead to improved safety and efficacy. 2. **Industry Compliance Costs**: Manufacturers of OTC monograph drugs may face increased compliance costs as a result of the changes to the user fee program. 3. **Potential Delays in Regulatory Review**: The updated applicable period for assessing fees may lead to delays in regulatory review, which could impact the availability of new OTC monograph drugs.

**Monied Interest Analysis:** The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) and the National Association of Chain Drug Stores (NACDS) are likely to be key stakeholders in this legislation. PhRMA may support the bill as it provides additional funding for FDA review and regulation, while NACDS may have concerns about the potential impact on industry compliance costs.

**Committee Capture:** The Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) has jurisdiction over this bill. The committee's chair, Senator Cassidy, is a cosponsor of the legislation, which suggests that the committee may be supportive of the bill

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (whistleblower personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Sen. Banks, Jim [R-IN]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$131,221

18 donors

PACs

Organizations

$100

Committees

Individuals

$131,121

No PAC contributions found

STOCKAMP FOUNDATION

1 transaction

$100

No committee contributions found

NEAL, ROLLIE

2 transactions

$26,136

RAMSEY, JASON

2 transactions

$13,200

SALAMONE, CHRISTOPHER J

1 transaction

$12,000

BYERS, RICHARD JR.

2 transactions

$11,600

BARKLEY, JOSH

1 transaction

$6,700

THRIFT, PAUL

1 transaction

$6,700

MUSELMAN, ROGER C.

1 transaction

$6,700

WALTERS, KENNETH

1 transaction

$6,700

DUMEZICH, DANA A.

1 transaction

$6,600

SEEGERS, PAUL R.

1 transaction

$5,800

MOORE, NOEL

1 transaction

$5,000

LILLARD, ROYCE

1 transaction

$4,650

VANDEBUNTE, BARB

1 transaction

$4,357

LEDERER, HOWARD

1 transaction

$4,140

COPELAND, LAMMOT JR

1 transaction

$3,700

BROWN, MATTHEWS

1 transaction

$3,680

PEDERSON, BRAD

1 transaction

$3,458

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

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

Sen. Kaine, Tim [D-VA]

ID: K000384

Top Contributors

THE CHICKASAW NATION

OrganizationADA, OK

$2,300

Jun 18, 2024

THE CHICKASAW NATION

OrganizationADA, OK

$1,000

Jun 26, 2023

SAN MANUEL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationLOS ANGELES, CA

$1,000

Jun 18, 2024

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$1,000

Jun 25, 2024

THE CHICKASAW NATION

OrganizationADA, OK

$1,000

Jun 18, 2024

CHOCTAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA

OrganizationDURANT, OK

$1,000

Oct 15, 2024

CHEROKEE NATION

OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK

$1,000

Dec 29, 2023

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$600

Oct 25, 2023

STONEHALL FARM

OrganizationTHE PLAINS, VA

$500

Jun 30, 2024

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$400

Oct 25, 2023

Sen. Kim, Andy [D-NJ]

ID: K000394

Top Contributors

THE CHICKASAW NATION

OrganizationADA, OK

$6,600

Sep 11, 2024

THE CHICKASAW NATION

OrganizationADA, OK

$3,300

Sep 30, 2024

JSTREETPAC

CONDUIT TOTAL LISTED IN AGG. FIELD

OrganizationWASHINGTON, DC

$1,000

Feb 15, 2024

JSTREETPAC

CONDUIT TOTAL LISTED IN AGG. FIELD

OrganizationWASHINGTON, DC

$1,000

Feb 15, 2024

JSTREETPAC

CONDUIT TOTAL LISTED IN AGG. FIELD

OrganizationWASHINGTON, DC

$500

Jan 11, 2024

COUNCIL FOR A LIVABLE WORLD

CONDUIT TOTAL LISTED IN AGG. FIELD

OrganizationWASHINGTON, DC

$500

Oct 11, 2023

GIVE CHANCES

OrganizationNORTHVALE, NJ

$300

Jul 10, 2023

GIVE CHANCES

OrganizationNORTHVALE, NJ

$300

Apr 26, 2023

JSTREETPAC

CONDUIT TOTAL LISTED IN AGG. FIELD

OrganizationWASHINGTON, DC

$250

Feb 15, 2024

KIM, ANTHONY

CENTERVIEW PARTNERS • FINANCE

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$6,600

Sep 30, 2023

Sen. Husted, Jon [R-OH]

ID: H001104

Top Contributors

No contribution data available

Donor Network - Sen. Banks, Jim [R-IN]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

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

Showing 44 nodes and 27 connections (43 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $146,421

Top Donors - Sen. Banks, Jim [R-IN]

Showing top 18 donors by contribution amount

1 Org17 Individuals

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 3 helped, 1 harmed.

−Pharmaceuticalsconfidence 0.90
The bill amends the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to revise and extend the user fee program for over-the-counter monograph drugs, imposing fees on manufacturers of OTC monograph drugs (Section 4, Authority to Assess and Use OTC Monograph Fees). This constitutes a clear cost to pharmaceutical companies that produce OTC drugs.
+Hospitals & Health Systemsconfidence 0.90
Section 6 (Treatment of Active Ingredients for Topical Administration) amends Section 505G to include evidence and testing standards for active ingredients for topical administration, which may benefit hospitals and health systems by expanding OTC options for topical treatments, reducing prescription burden and costs.
+Health Insuranceconfidence 0.85
Section 7 (Increasing the Clarity and Predictability of the Process for Developing Applications for Rx-to-Nonprescription Switches) includes a GAO report requirement to analyze health insurance claims data for commonly prescribed drugs suitable for Rx-to-OTC switches, which could help health insurers by potentially lowering drug costs through increased OTC availability.
+Biotech & Researchconfidence 0.80
Section 6's emphasis on evidence and testing standards for topical active ingredients, including real-world evidence and non-animal testing methods, may benefit biotech firms involved in developing new OTC monograph drugs or alternative testing technologies.

Who funds the sponsor on these industries

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

Industries this bill HELPS

Biotech & Research$1,500
from 2 contributions
- TOOHEY, BRIAN$1,000
- HACKETT, AIKEN$500
Health Insurance$500
from 1 contribution
- BAKER, TIMOTHY$500
Hospitals & Health Systems$60
from 1 contribution
- SHELBY, CHLOE C.$60

Industries this bill HARMS

Pharmaceuticals$19,705
from 11 contributions
- HAKIM, ANAT$6,600
- PUSEY, LEIGH$3,300
- CURRIE, L NICOLE$3,300
- RICKS, DAVID$2,500
- BILL, TERESA$2,005

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.

Environmental Protection Agency

Weak

Vector: 59%

Pages: 467-469AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on FDA user fees for over-the-counter drugs, while the Project 2025 EPA section concerns chemical and pesticide evaluations under TSCA and FIFRA. Both involve user‑fee mechanisms to fund agency reviews, creating a weak thematic link, but the substantive policies and agencies differ."

Key themes:user feesregulatory reviewagency fundingsafety standards

— 434 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l Ensure that new chemical evaluations are conducted in a timely manner, consistent with statutory requirements, to ensure the competitiveness of U.S. manufacturers. l For new chemicals, reset the program to ensure that reviews are completed on a timeline that is consistent with the statute. This includes revising the regulations governing the reviews of new chemicals. l Ensure that risk evaluations and risk management rules presume that workplaces are following all OSHA requirements, including requirements for personal protective equipment (PPE). l Apply real-world use of chemicals when assessing conditions of use for risk evaluations. l Transition the Safer Choice program to the private sector. l Right-size the TSCA fee’s rule so that it is consistent with the tasks that the agency is actually completing within the timelines of the statute and is not covering the costs of EPA inefficiency or overreach. l Revise existing policies to address the requirements of the 2016 Lautenberg amendments to the TSCA.41 l Develop a framework rule for risk management approaches that will be used under TSCA for existing chemicals. Needed Reforms and New Policy in OPP (Pesticides) l OPP should rely on Department of Agriculture and state usage data that reflect actual pesticide use in registration reviews and Endangered Species Act (ESA)42 analyses. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service should rely on similar data in their ESA analyses. l OPP has rigorous testing requirements that registrants must meet before pesticides are allowed on the market. However, when pesticides undergo registration review every 15 years, EPA relies on publicly available data with differing levels of quality and transparency. Data standards are needed to ensure that information relied on by EPA is made available to the agency at a similar level as the original testing data conducted by registrants to ensure that EPA can conduct a robust review and analysis of the data. — 435 — Environmental Protection Agency l ESA reform for pesticides is necessary. When approving pesticides, FIFRA allows for cost-benefit balancing, recognizing that pesticides are effective precisely because they harm pests. However, the ESA does not allow for any consideration of the beneficial effects of pesticides. In order to meet ESA obligations, pesticide uses are severely restricted, leaving growers with limited tools for crop protection. l New policies are needed to ensure that other program offices (such as ORD, OW, and OLEM) will defer to OPP on toxicity issues. OPP has rigorous testing requirements for pesticide ingredients and products to ensure before they go to market that their use will not harm human health and the environment. Assessments by other offices are redundant. l While individual pesticide registrations are considered adjudications and not reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), consistent with a 1993 OMB guidance, when pesticide tolerances and registrations are withdrawn by the agency (as opposed to being withdrawn voluntarily by registrants), these actions should undergo coordinated interagency review managed by OMB. Budget The Biden Administration has expanded the scope and breadth of regulatory actions with respect to OPPT and OPP, but both programs continue to maintain that resources are insufficient. OPPT (chemicals) suffers from a lack of leadership and an inability to complete the most basic requirements efficiently and in a timely fashion. While EPA has asked for more resources, including higher industry fees, it is not clear that it has the capacity to use additional dollars efficiently. With regard to OPP (pesticides), pesticide manufacturers feel that the program is underfunded and would like its budget to be increased so that pesticide actions can be reviewed more quickly. Manufacturers are also willing to pay higher fees to the fee-based portion of the program. However, grower groups have been dis- appointed by EPA’s actions and have significant concerns about EPA’s ability to conduct science-based risk assessments and take risk management actions that appropriately balance benefits and risks as required by FIFRA. Guardrails and third-party audits should be part of any funding increases through the Pesticide Registration Improvement Act (PRIA)43 or other mechanisms. OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT (ORD) AND RELATED SCIENCE ACTIVITIES While much of this work has not been authorized by law, EPA conducts a wide variety of intramural and extramural research, development, regulatory science,

Department of Health and Human Services

Minimal

Vector: 62%

Pages: 488-490AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on extending and revising the user fee program for over-the-counter monograph drugs to ensure FDA has resources for safety and efficacy regulation. Project 2025's FDA-related policies emphasize abortion data reporting, gender identity data collection cessation, generic drug competition, laboratory-developed test reform, and abortion pill restrictions—none of which are addressed in the bill."

Key themes:FDAdrug regulation

— 456 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise abortion providers and whether better prenatal physical, mental, and social care improves infant outcomes and decreases abortion rates, especially among those who are most vulnerable. The Ensuring Accurate and Complete Abortion Data Reporting Act of 20239 would amend title XIX of the Social Security Act and Public Health Service Act to improve the CDC’s abortion reporting mechanisms by requiring states, as a condition of federal Medicaid payments for family planning services, to report streamlined variables in a timely manner. The CDC should immediately end its collection of data on gender identity, which legitimizes the unscientific notion that men can become women (and vice versa) and encourages the phenomenon of ever-multiplying subjective identities. FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION (FDA) The FDA’s mission includes ensuring the safety and efficacy of drugs, biological products, and medical devices. Federal Laws That Shield Big Pharma from Competition. Because generics generally cost far less than brand-name drugs, consumers begin to save money as soon as a generic product comes on the market. The vast majority are very afford- able with 93 percent of generic products costing $20 or less. Savings would be even higher under proposals that prevent brand-name man- ufacturers from slowing down or impeding the entrance of generic products into the marketplace. Specifically, the FDA should prohibit pharmaceutical companies from purposely sitting on their legally available right to be the first to sell generic versions of their drugs. Additionally, Congress should create legal remedies for generic companies to obtain samples of brand-name products for their generic development efforts and should prohibit meritless “citizen petitions” submitted by manufacturers to delay approval of a generic competitor.10 Approval Process for Laboratory-Developed or Modified Medical Tests. Learning from the failed early COVID-19 testing experience, Congress and the FDA should focus on reforming laws and regulations governing medical tests, especially with respect to laboratory-developed tests. Commercial tests are developed with the intention of being widely marketed, distributed, and used, while laboratory-developed tests are created with the intention of being used solely within one laboratory. A test developed by a lab in accordance with the protocols developed by another lab (non-commercial sharing) currently constitutes a “new” laboratory-developed test because the lab in which it will be used is different from the initial developing lab. To encourage interlab- oratory collaboration and discourage duplicative test creation (and associated regulatory and logistical burdens), the FDA should introduce mechanisms through which laboratory-developed tests can easily be shared with other laboratories with- out the current regulatory burdens.11 — 457 — Department of Health and Human Services The “laboratory-developed tests” category currently encompasses a range of possible tests, many of which would be characterized more appropriately as “lab- oratory-modified tests” because they are not truly novel tests but rather modified versions of existing tests. To avoid stifling innovation and access to medical care, the applicable statutes and regulations should be revised to facilitate greater access to such modified tests.12 Finally, the FDA has long held that it has regulatory authority over such tests, while others have argued that they should be considered clinical services regulated by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). The FDA currently has regulatory authority over in vitro diagnostics, and under the Clinical Lab- oratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA),13 the CMS ensures that labs meet analytical validity standards for test methods. Congress, the FDA, and the CMS need to clarify and disentangle overlapping authorities over tests to eliminate regulatory confusion.14 Drug Shortages. The very thin profit margins and the regulatory burdens associated with generic drug manufacturing discourage inventory and capacity investments by manufacturers and contribute to drug shortages. HHS and the FDA should encourage more dependable generic drug manufacturing. The FDA should expand its current pass/fail approach to drug facility inspec- tions into a graded system that recognizes manufacturers that exceed minimum standards by investing in improving production reliability. The FDA should also add facility codes to drug packaging and construct a searchable database that cross-references product codes and facility codes. That would enable wholesalers and pharmacy benefit managers to identify and preference drugs manufactured at more reliable facilities, thus encouraging generic drug manufacturers to compete on reliability as well as on price. For its part, HHS should exempt multi-source generic drugs from requirements to pay rebates to Medicaid and other federally funded health programs, as those provisions penalize new investments in expanding manufacturing capacity when supply is unable to meet demand.15 Additionally, FDA and NIH should promote efficacy trials of new applications for generic drugs, which might include NIH fund- ing such trials or conducting its own. Abortion Pills. Abortion pills pose the single greatest threat to unborn chil- dren in a post-Roe world. The rate of chemical abortion in the U.S. has increased by more than 150 percent in the past decade; more than half of annual abortions in the U.S. are chemical rather than surgical. The abortion pill regimen is typically a two-part process. The first pill, mifepris- tone, causes the death of the unborn child by cutting off the hormone progesterone, which is required to sustain a pregnancy. The second pill, misoprostol, causes con- tractions to induce a delivery of the dead child and uterine contents, usually into a toilet at home. The abortion-pill regimen is currently approved for up to 70 days

Financial Regulatory Agencies

Minimal

Vector: 60%

Pages: 875-878AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on extending and revising the user fee program for over-the-counter monograph drugs to support FDA regulation, while the Project 2025 policy excerpt discusses the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's civil penalty fund, Federal Reserve operating expense limits, and structural reforms to financial regulatory agencies. There is no thematic or policy overlap between healthcare drug regulation and financial agency oversight."

— 843 — Financial Regulatory Agencies 37. Table 7, “Civil Penalty Fund Significant Activity,” in Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Financial Report of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Fiscal Year 2022, November 15, 2022, p. 21, https://files. consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/cfpb_financial-report_fy2022.pdf (accessed March 23, 2023). 38. Ibid. 39. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Financial Report of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Fiscal Year 2022, p. 20. 40. 12 U.S. Code § 5491, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12/5491 (accessed March 23, 2023). 41. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, “Bureau Structure,” last updated March 15, 2023, https://www. consumerfinance.gov/about-us/the-bureau/bureau-structure/ (accessed March 23, 2023). 42. See Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, “Consumer Financial Civil Penalty Fund Rule,” https://www. consumerfinance.gov/rules-policy/final-rules/consumer-financial-civil-penalty-fund-rule/ (accessed March 23, 2023). 43. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, “Civil Penalty Fund: Consumer Education and Financial Literacy,” https://www.consumerfinance.gov/enforcement/payments-harmed-consumers/civil-penalty-fund/consumer- education-financial-literacy/ (accessed March 23, 2023). 44. U.S. Government Accountability Office, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau: Opportunity Exists to Improve Transparency of Civil Penalty Fund Activities, GAO-14-551, June 2014, https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-14-551. pdf (accessed March 23, 2023). 45. Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 591 U.S. ___ (2020), https://www.supremecourt.gov/ opinions/19pdf/19-7_n6io.pdf (accessed March 23, 2023). 46. Ibid., p. 37. 47. See 12 U.S. Code § 5497(a)(1), https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12/5497 (accessed March 23, 2023). Congress specified that the amount transferred to the CFPB “shall not exceed” 12 percent “of the total operating expenses of the Federal Reserve System…in fiscal year 2013, and in each year thereafter.” Ibid., § 5497(2)(A)(iii). 48. Community Financial Services Association of America v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (5th Cir. 2022), pp. 31–32, https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/21/21-50826-CV0.pdf (accessed March 23, 2023). 49. Ibid., p. 32. 50. Ibid. (quoting Seila Law LLC v. CFPB, 140 S. Ct. 2183, 2202 n. 8 (2020)). 51. U.S. Supreme Court, “Order List: 598 U.S.,” February 27, 2023, Docket No. 22–448, CFPB et al. v. Com. Fin. Services Assn., et al., https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/022723zor_6537.pdf (accessed March 23, 2023). 52. Devin Watkins, Competitive Enterprise Institute, “Consumer Financial Protection Bureau: Ripe for Reform,” testimony before the Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Monetary Policy, Committee on Financial Services, U.S. House of Representatives, March 9, 2023, https://docs.house.gov/meetings/BA/ BA20/20230309/115384/HHRG-118-BA20-Wstate-WatkinsD-20230309.pdf (accessed March 23, 2023); Norbert J. Michel, “7 Steps Next Director Can Take to Make the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Less Awful,” Heritage Foundation Commentary, July 28, 2018, https://www.heritage.org/markets-and-finance/ commentary/7-steps-next-director-can-take-make-the-consumer-financial. 53. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Federal Reserve, and National Credit Union Administration. Those functions performed by the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) prior to Dodd–Frank should be transferred to the OCC since OTS has merged with OCC. 54. See “Section 1071 of the Dodd–Frank Act” in David R. Burton, “Improving Small Business Access to Capital,” Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Symposium on Section 1071 of the Dodd–Frank Act, Small Business Lending Panel, November 6, 2019, https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/cfpb_burton-written- statement_symposium-section-1071.pdf (accessed March 23, 2023). 55. 5 U.S. Code Chapter 5, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/part-I/chapter-5 (accessed March 23, 2023). 56. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, “Administrative Adjudication Proceedings,” https://www. consumerfinance.gov/administrative-adjudication-proceedings/ (accessed March 23, 2023), and 12 Code of Federal Regulations Part 1081—Rules of Practice for Adjudication Proceedings, https://www.law.cornell.edu/ cfr/text/12/part-1081 (accessed March 23, 2023). — 845 — 28 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Brendan Carr MISSION STATEMENT The FCC should promote freedom of speech, unleash economic opportunity, ensure that every American has a fair shot at next-generation connectivity, and enable the private sector to create good-paying jobs through pro-growth reforms that support a diversity of viewpoints, ensure secure and competitive communi- cations networks, modernize outdated infrastructure rules, and represent good stewardship of taxpayer dollars. OVERVIEW AND BACKGROUND The FCC is an independent regulatory agency that has jurisdiction over inter- state and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite, and cable.1 Five Commissioners are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate for fixed five-year terms.2 The FCC does not have any other presidentially appointed, Senate-confirmed officials. Ordinarily, the five-member FCC is divided politically three to two with a majority of Commissioners from the same political party as the President. The Commissioners’ terms are staggered so that every year at the end of June, one Commissioner’s term expires.3 However, a Commissioner can continue to serve until the end of the next session of Congress (or up to 1.5 years beyond the expiration of the term) if no replacement is confirmed after his or her term ends.4 By law, only a bare majority of Commissioners can be from the same politi- cal party (no more than three when there are five members).5 By tradition, the Chairperson resigns when a new President of a different political party is sworn

Department of Health and Human Services

Minimal

Vector: 59%

Pages: 527-529AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on extending and revising the user fee program for over-the-counter monograph drugs to support FDA regulation of non-prescription medications, which is unrelated to the Project 2025 policy objectives concerning OCR authority, religious accommodations, Section 1557 enforcement, or conscience protections in healthcare."

— 495 — Department of Health and Human Services l HHS should restore OCR authority to review requests for and render opinions on the application of RFRA to requests for religious accommodation of people, families, and doctors who cannot in good conscience take or administer vaccines, including those made or tested with aborted fetal cell lines. l HHS should restore Section 1557, Section 504, and other OCR regulations and fix guidance documents. In 2020, the Trump Administration’s OCR published regulations under Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act that restored the agency’s enforcement of that law to the limits of its statutory text, deferred to the ACA’s widespread use of a binary biological conception of sex discrimination, and specified that the regulation must comply with the religious exemption and abortion neutrality clauses in Title IX from which it is derived as well as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and other laws. Courts blocked core provisions of that rule from going into effect. In 2022, the Biden Administration proposed to reinstate a rule contradicting the scope of the statute and imposing nondiscrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. It is expected that this rule will be finalized in 2023 even though several courts have issued rulings against the interpretation on which it is based. l OCR should return its enforcement of sex discrimination to the statutory framework of Section 1557 and Title IX. Specifically, it should: 1. Remove all guidance issued under the Biden Administration concerning sexual orientation and gender identity under Section 1557, particularly the May 2021 announcement of enforcement82 and March 2022 statement threatening states that protect minors from genital mutilation.83 2. Issue a general statement of policy specifying that it will not enforce any prohibition on sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination in the Section 1557 regulation and that it will prioritize compliance with the First Amendment, RFRA, and federal conscience laws in any case implicating those claims. DOJ should commit to defending these actions aggressively against inevitable court challenges, including under cases such as Heckler v. Chaney.84 — 496 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 3. Issue a proposed rule to restore the Trump regulations under Section 1557, explicitly interpreting the law not to include sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination based on the textual approach to male and female biology taken by Congress in the ACA, the need to recognize biological distinctions as part of the sound practice of health care, and the need to ensure protections of medical judgment and conscience. DOJ should agree to defend this rule to the Supreme Court if necessary. 4. Issue a general statement of policy announcing that it plans to enforce Section 1557 discrimination bans by refocusing on serious cases of race, sex, and disability discrimination. In particular, OCR should highlight its 2019 investigation and voluntary resolution agreement with Michigan State University based on the sexual abuse of gymnasts by Larry Nassar. OCR should also coordinate with the Department of Education on a public education and civil rights enforcement campaign to ensure that female college athletes who become pregnant are no longer pressured to obtain abortions; pursue race discrimination claims against entities that adopt or impose racially discriminatory policies such as those based on critical race theory; and announce its intention to enforce disability rights laws to protect children born prematurely, children with disabilities, and children born alive after abortions. 5. Issue and finalize the Trump-era draft disability rights regulations concerning crisis standards of care and use of Quality of Life Adjusted Years (QALYs), and reissue and finalize a disability regulation (withdrawn by the Biden Administration) that prohibited discriminatory application of assisted suicide and denial of life-saving treatments for disabled newborns. l OCR should withdraw its pharmacy abortion mandate guidance. OCR should withdraw its “Obligations Under Federal Civil Rights Laws to Ensure Access to Comprehensive Reproductive Health Care Services” guidance for retail pharmacies,85 which purports to address nondiscrimination obligations of pharmacies under federal civil rights laws and in fact orders them to stock and dispense first-trimester abortion drugs. The guidance invents this so-called requirement and fails to acknowledge that pharmacies and pharmacists have the right not to participate in abortions, including pill-induced abortions, if doing so would violate their sincere moral or religious objections. Moreover, no federal civil rights laws preempt state pro-life statutes.

Financial Regulatory Agencies

Minimal

Vector: 59%

Pages: 866-868AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on extending and revising the FDA's user fee program for over-the-counter monograph drugs to ensure safety and efficacy, which is unrelated to the Project 2025 policy objectives concerning SEC and CFTC reforms such as eliminating administrative proceedings, limiting investigation times, modernizing commodity definitions, or restructuring agency operations."

— 833 — Financial Regulatory Agencies l Eliminate all administrative proceedings (APs) within the SEC except for stop orders related to defective registration statements. The SEC enforcement system does not need to have both district court cases and APs. Alternatively, respondents should be allowed to elect whether an adjudication occurs in the SEC’s administrative law court or an ordinary Article III federal court.24 l End the practice of delegating the decision to initiate an enforcement case. The SEC Chairman—and possibly the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO)—should study whether other Commission delegation of authority to staff should be narrowed and whether sunsetting of such delegation of authority should be required. Congress should: l Require an Inspector General’s (or possibly a GAO) report regarding SEC information technology spending and contracting. Spending appears to be much too high, and IT contracting is poorly managed. l Statutorily limit the time for an investigation to two years with no extensions. Long investigations harm private parties and the quality of justice. With adequate management processes, the SEC should not need more than two years even for complicated matters. The SEC Chairman should: l Dramatically reduce the number of direct reports to the SEC Chairman. l Merge SEC offices that are performing similar functions. l Reduce the number of managers per employee. CFTC ADMINISTRATION AND IMPROVED COMMODITIES AND DERIVATIVES MARKETS Congress should: l Modernize the definition of commodity (which is now largely a laundry list of agricultural commodities)25 and clarify the treatment of digital assets. l Clarify through an express amendment to the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA)26 the circumstances that require a foreign swap trading platform to — 834 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise register with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) as a swap execution facility (SEF) under Sections 2(i)27 and 5h28 of the CEA. Currently, it is not clear whether having one or a small number of U.S. participants would require SEF registration under prior staff guidance, which has led foreign swap trading platforms to exclude all U.S. persons from their platforms or to go through the process of seeking an exemption from registration. l Amend Section 2 of the CEA to authorize the CFTC Chairman to remove the agency’s Executive Director without a Commission vote. l To augment Commissioners’ independence, establish funding amounts for the Commissioners’ offices by statute with adjustments for inflation, with no requirement for a Commissioner to obtain budget or expense approvals from the Chairman or the agency’s administrative staff. The CFTC should: l Allocate more resources to core agency functions rather than ancillary and support operations. l Replace the existing position limits rule, which reduces liquidity and makes markets more volatile, with further delegation of authority to the exchanges to set position limits and position accountability levels where appropriate for the relevant market. l Reduce overly prescriptive rules implementing the CFTC’s core principles. l Apply the definitions of “U.S. Person” and “Guarantee” in the CFTC’s 2020 rule on cross-border application of swaps regulations (2020 Cross-Border Rule)29 to the regulatory requirements that remain covered by the CFTC’s 2013 guidance on the subject (2013 Guidance).30 Currently, the definition of each of these foundational terms differs depending on whether the requirement in question is covered by the 2020 Cross-Border Rule or the 2013 Guidance. l Remove the regulatory categories of “affiliate conduit” and “foreign consolidated subsidiary” from the 2013 Guidance and the CFTC’s cross- border rule on margin for uncleared swaps,31 respectively. These categories were replaced by the concept of a “Significant Risk Subsidiary” for purposes of the 2020 Cross-Border Rule because of widespread market confusion and compliance difficulties arising from their broad and vague scope.

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 Sen. Banks, Jim

Tyler’s Law

119/s/921

PATRIOT Parks Act

119/s/2308

Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History Act

119/s/2385

Back to All Bills