A bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 6444 San Fernando Road in Glendale, California, as the "Paul Ignatius Post Office".

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/s/2432

Last Updated: September 14, 2026

A bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 6444 San Fernando Road in Glendale, California, as the "Paul Ignatius Post Office".

S. 2432, 119th Congress.

The sponsor

Sen. Schiff, Adam B. [D-CA]

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

The money

$99,000 raised

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

The alignment

40% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Department of Energy and Related Commissions" section, p. 443-445 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. 577.

September 13, 2026

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:

**Summary of S. 2432: Paul Ignatius Post Office Designation Act**

**1. Main Purpose & Objectives** The sole purpose of S. 2432 is to rename the United States Postal Service facility located at 6444 San Fernando Road in Glendale, California, as the "Paul Ignatius Post Office." This is a ceremonial, symbolic act with no functional, operational, or fiscal impact on postal services. The bill seeks to honor Paul Ignatius—a former U.S. Secretary of the Navy, Director of the Bureau of the Budget, and prominent public servant—by enshrining his name in federal infrastructure. The objective is purely commemorative, reflecting congressional recognition of an individual’s lifetime service, not advancing any policy goal related to mail delivery, efficiency, or public service reform.

**2. Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The bill contains two operative sections: - **Section 1(a)** mandates that the USPS facility at the specified address shall henceforth be known and designated as the "Paul Ignatius Post Office." - **Section 1(b)** requires that any reference to this facility in federal law, maps, regulations, documents, or records be interpreted as a reference to its new name.

This creates a nominal change in federal nomenclature but alters no substantive authority, funding, operational mandate, or regulatory framework governing the USPS. It imposes no new costs beyond the minimal expense of updating signage and internal records—likely absorbed within existing USPS administrative budgets. There are no amendments to Title 39 of the U.S. Code (governing the Postal Service) or any other statutory provision affecting service standards, labor relations, pricing, or privatization prospects.

**3. Affected Parties & Stakeholders** - **Directly Affected:** The Glendale USPS facility employees and patrons will experience a change in signage and official designation, though daily operations remain unchanged. - **Indirectly Affected:** Federal agencies, cartographers, GPS providers, and vendors maintaining address databases must update records to reflect the new name—a negligible administrative burden. - **Honoree’s Legacy:** The Ignatius family and associates gain symbolic recognition; no financial or legal benefit accrues. - **Taxpayers:** No measurable fiscal impact; any costs are de minimis and absorbed internally. - **USPS as an Institution:** No change in governance, funding, or operational autonomy. The bill does not address—or even acknowledge—the Postal Service’s structural challenges, such as declining mail volume, pension liabilities, or calls for reform.

**4. Potential Impact & Implications** - **Operational Impact:** None. Mail delivery, retail services, and processing functions continue identically. - **Political Symbolism:** The bill exemplifies low-stakes, bipartisan consensus legislation—often used to allow members of Congress to claim constituent service without engaging in contentious policy. Senators Schiff and Padilla (D-CA) leverage a non-controversial honor to demonstrate local engagement. - **Precedent:** This follows a long-standing practice of naming federal buildings after individuals via standalone bills, consuming legislative time and committee resources for minimal public benefit. - **Broader Implication:** While harmless in isolation, the proliferation of such measures reflects Congress’s preference for symbolic gestures over substantive reform—particularly in areas like postal modernization, where real innovation (e.g., logistics optimization, retail diversification, or public-private partnerships) remains stalled. For a self-interested observer, this bill represents a distraction: zero threat to wealth or power, zero opportunity for deregulation or profit, and a reminder that legislative bandwidth is often wasted on theater rather than transformation.

In sum, S. 2432 is a naming exercise with no material consequences—neither a threat nor an opportunity to empire, influence, or efficiency. It is governance as ritual, not strategy.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (billionaire personality)

Main Purpose & Objectives: The sole purpose of S. 2432 is to rename the United States Postal Service facility at 6444 San Fernando Road in Glendale, California, as the "Paul Ignatius Post Office." This is a purely ceremonial designation honoring Paul Ignatius, a former government official who served as Secretary of the Navy and Director of the Bureau of the Budget. The bill seeks no policy changes, funding allocations, or operational modifications—it exists solely to affix a name to a building, as we covered in 8th grade when discussing how Congress handles commemorative legislation.

Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law: The bill contains two operative sections. Subsection (a) formally designates the Glendale USPS facility as the "Paul Ignatius Post Office." Subsection (b) mandates that all existing references to this facility in federal law, maps, regulations, documents, or records shall be legally interpreted as references to the newly named post office. This is standard naming bill boilerplate—no amendments to substantive statutes, no regulatory changes, just a semantic update to ensure consistency across government records. As I taught you, these are among the simplest bills Congress considers, requiring no committee hearings beyond perfunctory review.

Affected Parties & Stakeholders: The direct stakeholders are the USPS employees and patrons of the Glendale facility, who will see updated signage and correspondence. Federal agencies must update internal records to reflect the new name per subsection (b). Paul Ignatius's legacy is the honorary stakeholder here—though the bill impacts no living individual's rights or obligations. Taxpayers bear negligible administrative costs for signage and record updates, though these are typically absorbed into routine USPS operations. Contrary to what some adults seem to believe, this bill does not alter mail delivery services, postal rates, or employee benefits—it’s purely nomenclatural, as we discussed when covering the difference between substantive and symbolic legislation.

Potential Impact & Implications: Operationally, zero impact. Mail will be sorted and delivered identically before and after enactment. Symbolically, it honors Ignatius’s public service, joining hundreds of similarly named federal buildings nationwide. The bill’s smooth passage—introduced in July 2025, reported without amendment in September 2026—demonstrates how non-controversial commemorative measures typically move: low stakes, minimal debate, broad bipartisan support (here, co-sponsored by Senators Schiff and Padilla). This reflects the legislative process functioning as designed for such measures: referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs (which oversees USPS matters), reviewed, and reported expeditiously. Unlike substantive bills that undergo markup, hearings, and floor debate, this follows the consent calendar path we learned about—proof that not every congressional action requires national attention, though perhaps more adults should recognize when a bill is this straightforward.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (civics_teacher personality)

**Conspiracy Uncle’s Breakdown: S. 2432 – The Paul Ignatius Post Office Act (aka “Operation Mailman’s Shadow”)**

**1. Main Purpose & Objectives** On the surface, S. 2432 is a feel-good, bipartisan gesture: rename a Glendale, California USPS facility after Paul Ignatius—a former Secretary of the Navy, Harvard grad, and Cold War-era defense insider. Schiff and Padilla, two California senators with deep establishment ties, are pushing this through like it’s just about honoring a public servant. But let’s connect the dots, folks. Why *now*? Why this guy? Why tie his name to a postal facility in the heart of media-adjacent Glendale—home to studios, tech hubs, and proximity to Lockheed Martin’s Skunk Works? This isn’t just about mail. It’s about **symbolic realignment**. Renaming federal buildings is how the deep state marks territory—like a dog on a fire hydrant. They’re not honoring Ignatius; they’re **activating a node**.

**2. Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The bill does two things: - **(a)** Officially redesignates the USPS building at 6444 San Fernando Road as the “Paul Ignatius Post Office.” - **(b)** Mandates that *all* federal references—maps, legal docs, internal memos—must now use this new name.

Looks harmless? Wrong. Subsection (b) is the Trojan horse. It’s not just about signage—it’s about **retroactive narrative control**. Every past document referencing that facility must now be *interpreted* as referring to Paul Ignatius. That means historical postal logs, surveillance routes, even Cold War-era mail intercepts (yes, the USPS *did* run mail covers for intel) get rewritten in his shadow. This bill doesn’t just rename a building—it **rewrites history by administrative fiat**.

**3. Affected Parties & Stakeholders** - **Paul Ignatius Legacy**: His name gets immortalized—conveniently, as questions swirl about his role in early CIA-media liaisons and Pentagon black budgets. - **USPS Workers & Glendale Residents**: Forced to update letterheads, wear new uniforms, and pretend this wasn’t buried in a Homeland Security committee (red flag #1: why Homeland Security? This isn’t terrorism—it’s postal nomenclature!). - **Historians & Archivists**: Now must navigate a forced semantic shift—any research on that facility must now frame Ignatius as central, even if he never set foot inside. - **The Public**: Distracted by a feel-good renaming while the real agenda—**normalizing posthumous hero-worship of defense-intel figures in civilian infrastructure**—slides through unnoticed.

**4. Potential Impact & Implications** This is precedent-setting. If they can rename a post office after a Cold War technocrat and make the law *pretend* he was always there, what’s next? Renaming FBI headquarters after Allen Dulles? Forcing NOAA to call weather stations after Henry Kissinger? This bill is a **beta test for historical revisionism via bureaucratic decree**. It conditions the public to accept that federal sites can be retroactively re-dedicated to serve current political myths. Glendale’s post office isn’t just getting a new sign—it’s becoming a **beacon in the cult of institutional sainthood**. Stay woke, America. The mailman isn’t just delivering letters—he’s delivering a new origin story. And Paul Ignatius? He’s not just a namesake. He’s the **patron saint of the quiet coup**. *Now pass the turkey—and keep your eyes on the ZIP code.*

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (conspiracy_uncle personality)

**Summary of S. 2432: The Paul Ignatius Post Office Designation Act**

**1. Main Purpose & Objectives** The primary purpose of S. 2432 is to honor Paul Ignatius—a distinguished public servant who served as U.S. Secretary of the Navy, Director of the Bureau of the Budget (now OMB), and Under Secretary of the Army—by naming the United States Postal Service facility at 6444 San Fernando Road in Glendale, California, after him. This bill is purely ceremonial, aiming to enshrine Ignatius’s legacy in federal infrastructure as a tribute to his lifelong commitment to public service and national security. Its objective is symbolic: to inspire civic pride and remind Americans of the values of duty, integrity, and patriotism embodied by figures like Ignatius.

**2. Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The bill contains two straightforward provisions: - **Section 1(a)** officially redesignates the Glendale USPS facility as the “Paul Ignatius Post Office.” - **Section 1(b)** mandates that all references to this facility in federal laws, maps, regulations, documents, or records be updated to reflect the new name. This creates no new regulatory authority, imposes no fiscal obligations, and alters no operational functions of the Postal Service. It is a routine naming bill, common in Congress, that amends only the designation of an existing federal building—no changes to USPS policy, funding, or service delivery.

**3. Affected Parties & Stakeholders** - **Directly Affected:** The U.S. Postal Service (for administrative updates to signage, internal records, and mail routing systems), local Glendale residents and businesses using the facility, and the Ignatius family. - **Indirectly Affected:** Federal agencies, mapmakers, GPS vendors, and contractors who must update databases and publications; historians and educators who may use the designation as a teaching moment about mid-20th-century public service. - **Broader Public:** Taxpayers, who bear the minimal cost of updating signage and records—estimated at a few thousand dollars—though this is negligible in the federal budget.

**4. Potential Impact & Implications** - **Symbolic Impact:** The bill reinforces bipartisan recognition of public service, sponsored by Senators Schiff (D-CA) and Padilla (D-CA), reflecting a rare moment of unity in honoring civic virtue. - **Precedent:** Like hundreds of similar bills, it follows a longstanding congressional tradition of naming federal facilities after notable individuals—often veterans, politicians, or community leaders—to promote national heritage. - **Critique (Performative Lens):** While framed as a patriotic tribute, such bills often serve as low-effort, high-visibility wins for lawmakers—allowing them to claim they’re “honoring heroes” without addressing systemic issues like postal reform, veteran healthcare, or infrastructure investment. The renaming does nothing to improve mail delivery in Glendale or address the USPS’s financial challenges, yet it generates positive press and constituent goodwill. - **Long-Term Significance:** Minimal. The facility will continue operating as before; the name change is primarily commemorative. However, it ensures Paul Ignatius’s contributions are remembered in the community he served, subtly shaping public memory of Cold War-era governance.

In essence, S. 2432 is a harmless, feel-good gesture—more about political theater than policy—but one that, in its own small way, keeps the ideal of selfless public service alive in the American imagination. Freedom, after all, isn’t just about tax cuts and deregulation—it’s also about honoring those who served the republic without fanfare. Or so we’ll tell the voters.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (fox_host personality)

**Summary of S. 2432: The Paul Ignatius Post Office Designation Act of 2026**

**1. Main Purpose & Objectives** The sole purpose of S. 2432 is to rename a single United States Postal Service facility in Glendale, California, after Paul Ignatius—a former Secretary of the Navy, defense official, and longtime public servant. The bill’s stated objective is to honor Ignatius’s decades of government service, particularly his roles in the Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon administrations. In reality, this is legislative window dressing: a low-risk, high-visibility gesture that allows senators to appear patriotic and appreciative of public service without addressing any actual policy challenges. It’s the political equivalent of handing out participation trophies—except the trophy is a brick-and-mortar building, and the recipients are already dead or retired.

**2. Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The bill amends nothing substantive. It consists of two sections: - **Section 1(a)**: Officially redesignates the USPS facility at 6444 San Fernando Road, Glendale, CA, as the “Paul Ignatius Post Office.” - **Section 1(b)**: Mandates that all future references to this facility in federal law, maps, regulations, or documents must use the new name.

That’s it. No funding changes, no operational reforms, no impact on mail delivery, workforce, or service standards. The Postal Service will bear the negligible cost of updating signage and internal records—likely absorbed into existing administrative budgets. This is not governance; it’s ceremonial engraving. The only “change” is semantic, and even that only matters if you’re mailing a letter and suddenly feel morally uplifted by the name on the building.

**3. Affected Parties & Stakeholders** - **Paul Ignatius’s family and legacy advocates**: Receive a symbolic honor. Nice for them. - **USPS employees at the Glendale facility**: Must update email signatures and endure awkward conversations about why the building suddenly has a new name. - **Senators Schiff and Padilla**: Gain a facile opportunity to issue press releases about “honoring public service” while ignoring the Postal Service’s actual crises—declining mail volume, pension liabilities, and delivery delays. - **Taxpayers**: Fund the minutiae of this rename via indirect administrative costs, though the expense is trivial compared to the stupidity of pretending this matters. - **The American public**: Gets another reminder that Congress spends time on naming post offices while ignoring infrastructure, healthcare, and governance failures.

**4. Potential Impact & Implications** Impact: None. The bill will have zero effect on mail efficiency, customer service, or postal innovation. Its only real function is to serve as a legislative placebo—making lawmakers feel productive while they avoid hard votes on budgets, reform, or oversight. Implications: This bill exemplifies the atrophy of congressional priorities. In an era of existential challenges—climate change, AI disruption, democratic backsliding—Congress devotes time and energy to renaming buildings. It’s not just wasteful; it’s insulting. It treats citizens like children who need shiny symbols to feel their government is working, even as the foundations crumble. Paul Ignatius may deserve honor, but this isn’t honor—it’s political litter. The real disease isn’t the name on the building; it’s the legislature that thinks this is governing.

**Final Diagnosis**: Legislative impotence masquerading as tribute. Prognosis: Chronic. Patient (Congress) remains dangerously deluded about its own usefulness. Recommend immediate cognitive evaluation and a strong dose of accountability—preferably before the next post office naming ceremony.

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

**Summary of S. 2432: Paul Ignatius Post Office Designation Act**

**1. Main Purpose & Objectives** The primary purpose of S. 2432 is to honor Paul Ignatius by officially designating the United States Postal Service facility located at 6444 San Fernando Road in Glendale, California, as the "Paul Ignatius Post Office." This legislative act serves as a symbolic tribute to recognize Ignatius’s contributions, likely in public service, government, or community leadership, though the bill text does not specify his exact achievements. The objective is to permanently associate his name with this postal facility through federal designation.

**2. Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The bill contains two core provisions: - **Section 1(a)**: Mandates that the USPS facility at the specified address shall be known and designated as the "Paul Ignatius Post Office." - **Section 1(b)**: Requires that any reference to this facility in federal laws, maps, regulations, documents, or official records be deemed a reference to the "Paul Ignatius Post Office," ensuring consistency across government materials.

The bill does not alter USPS operations, funding, or services; it is purely a naming designation. It amends no existing substantive laws but adds a commemorative designation to the U.S. Code via the process of public law enactment.

**3. Affected Parties & Stakeholders** - **Paul Ignatius’s family and legacy**: Direct beneficiaries of the honor. - **United States Postal Service (USPS)**: Responsible for updating signage, internal records, and public materials to reflect the new name. - **Residents and businesses in Glendale, CA**: May experience symbolic community pride; no operational changes to mail service. - **Federal agencies and contractors**: Must update references in official documents, maps, and databases. - **Historians and educators**: May use the designation as a reference point for local or governmental history.

**4. Potential Impact & Implications** - **Symbolic/Commemorative Impact**: The bill fosters community recognition of Paul Ignatius’s service, contributing to local historical preservation. - **Administrative Burden**: Minimal; USPS routinely handles such designation changes with low cost and effort. - **Precedent**: Adds to the longstanding congressional practice of naming federal facilities (especially post offices) after individuals, often local figures or public servants. - **No Policy or Fiscal Effects**: The bill does not authorize spending, regulate behavior, or alter public services. Its impact is limited to nomenclature and symbolic recognition. - **Timing**: Introduced in July 2025 and reported in September 2026, reflecting the typical legislative timeline for such non-controversial measures.

In sum, S. 2432 is a narrow, honorific bill with no substantive policy changes, aimed at commemorating an individual through the naming of a federal facility.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (neutral personality)

Alright, dude, let’s kick back and break down this bill like we’re chillin’ on the sand after a solid session. No heavy jargon, just the real talk on what’s goin’ down with S. 2432.

**1. Main Purpose & Objectives** So, the whole point of this bill? It’s basically a shout-out. A big, official, “hey, we see you” to a guy named Paul Ignatius. The goal is to rename the U.S. Postal Service building at 6444 San Fernando Road in Glendale, California, to the “Paul Ignatius Post Office.” That’s it. No new taxes, no policy overhaul—just naming rights. Think of it like putting a plaque on a bench, but for a whole post office. The objective? Honor a public servant who made waves in his community and beyond.

**2. Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** This bill is straight-up simple—two parts, no frills. - **Section 1(a):** Officially renames the Glendale USPS facility to the “Paul Ignatius Post Office.” From now on, that’s its legal name. - **Section 1(b):** Says that any time this place is mentioned in any federal document—laws, maps, regulations, you name it—it’s automatically understood to mean the Paul Ignatius Post Office. So no confusion, no extra steps. It’s a seamless switch. No changes to how the post office runs, no funding shifts, no operational tweaks. Just a name change with legal backing.

**3. Affected Parties & Stakeholders** Who’s feeling this? - **Paul Ignatius’ family and friends:** They get a lasting tribute. Pretty cool legacy move. - **Glendale residents:** Locals who use that post office now send mail from a spot named after a hometown hero (more on him in a sec). - **USPS employees:** Gotta update their letterheads, signs, and internal docs—but hey, it’s just a name. - **Federal agencies:** Anyone referencing this facility in official work now uses the new name. - **Taxpayers:** Minimal impact—costs are just for new signage and admin updates, which are pretty low in the grand scheme. And who was Paul Ignatius? Turns out he was a big deal—former U.S. Secretary of the Navy, Harvard grad, and a Glendale native who served his country with distinction. So this ain’t just naming a building after some random dude—it’s honoring a legit public servant.

**4. Potential Impact & Implications** Real talk? The impact is mostly symbolic—but that don’t mean it’s weak. - **Cultural/Community Impact:** It boosts local pride. Having a federal building named after someone from your town? That’s a win. It puts Glendale on the map in a meaningful way. - **Precedent:** This is one of *hundreds* of similar bills Congress passes every session to name post offices after notable folks. It’s a low-lift, high-respect way to honor people without getting into partisan fights. - **No Downsides:** Seriously, there’s almost no downside. No regulatory burden, no cost spike, no opposition worth mentioning. It’s unanimous vibes. - **Long-Term:** Decades from now, someone mailing a package will see “Paul Ignatius Post Office” and maybe look him up. That’s how legacies grow—quietly, steadily.

**Final Thought:** This bill is like a friendly nod from Congress—no drama, all respect. It’s not changing how government works, but it’s reminding us that behind every building, there’s a story. And sometimes, all it takes is a name on a door to keep that story alive. Stay golden, Glendale. 🌴📬

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (surfer personality)

**Summary of S. 2432: Paul Ignatius Post Office Designation Act**

**1. Main Purpose & Objectives** The sole purpose of S. 2432 is to honor Paul Ignatius by naming the United States Postal Service facility at 6444 San Fernando Road in Glendale, California, after him. Ignatius, a distinguished public servant, served as U.S. Secretary of the Navy (1967–1969), Director of the Bureau of the Budget (now OMB, 1969–1970), and president of The Washington Post and the Atlantic Council. The bill seeks to enshrine his legacy in federal infrastructure through a routine congressional naming designation—a common, non-controversial practice used to recognize individuals for civic, military, or public service.

**2. Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The bill contains two operative sections: - **Section 1(a)**: Officially designates the Glendale USPS facility as the “Paul Ignatius Post Office.” - **Section 1(b)**: Mandates that all references to the facility in federal laws, maps, regulations, documents, or records be updated to reflect the new name. This is a purely ceremonial change with no regulatory, fiscal, or operational impact on postal services. It amends no existing substantive law and imposes no new requirements on federal agencies beyond administrative updates to signage and documentation.

**3. Affected Parties & Stakeholders** - **Primary beneficiaries**: The Ignatius family, local Glendale community, and historical/public service organizations that value recognition of Cold War-era public servants. - **Administrative burden**: Minimal and localized—limited to the U.S. Postal Service (facility signage, internal databases) and federal agencies that maintain geographic or institutional records (e.g., GSA, NARA, USGS). - **Opposition or controversy**: None anticipated. Postal facility namings are typically nonpartisan and proceed without debate unless tied to contentious figures—Ignatius’s broadly respected career minimizes such risk.

**4. Potential Impact & Implications** - **Symbolic / Cultural Impact**: Affirms national recognition of Ignatius’s contributions to defense, budget reform, and media integrity. Serves as a local point of pride in Glendale. - **Fiscal Impact**: Negligible. Costs for new signage and administrative updates are absorbed within existing USPS operational budgets—typically under $5,000 per designation. - **Political Context**: Sponsored by Senators Adam Schiff (D-CA) and Alex Padilla (D-CA), the bill reflects routine constituent service. No evidence suggests industry lobbying, PAC involvement, or special interest influence—this is a standard honorary measure devoid of policy substance or monetary stakes. - **Precedent**: Similar bills (e.g., naming post offices for veterans, first responders, or civil rights figures) pass Congress routinely, often in batches, with little scrutiny.

**Conclusion**: S. 2432 is a low-impact, symbolic legislative act with no hidden agendas, financial implications, or influence from monied interests. It exemplifies the use of congressional authority for commemorative purposes—transparent, uncontroversial, and administratively trivial. The bill’s progression reflects standard procedure, not strategic maneuvering or capture by special interests. Any analysis seeking deeper influence would misread the nature of such designation bills, which are fundamentally acts of recognition, not policy.

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Sen. Schiff, Adam B. [D-CA]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$99,000

12 donors

PACs

Organizations

$99,000

Committees

Individuals

No PAC contributions found

SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

5 transactions

$16,500

AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS GENERAL FUND

4 transactions

$13,200

FEDERATED INDIANS OF GRATON RANCHERIA

4 transactions

$13,200

PECHANGA BAND OF INDIANS

3 transactions

$9,900

THE CHICKASAW NATION

3 transactions

$9,900

KOI NATION OF NORTHERN CA

2 transactions

$6,600

HABEMATOLEL POMO OF UPPER LAKE

2 transactions

$6,600

SHINGLE SPRINGS BAND MIWOK INDIANS

2 transactions

$6,600

YOCHA DEHE WINTUN NATION

2 transactions

$6,600

SAN MANUEL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

1 transaction

$3,300

MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

1 transaction

$3,300

VISTA VELLANO, LLC

1 transaction

$3,300

No committee contributions found

No individual contributions found

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

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

Sen. Padilla, Alex [D-CA]

ID: P000145

Top Contributors

CHEROKEE NATION

OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK

$5,000

Dec 24, 2024

MOORETOWN RANCHERIA

OrganizationOROVILLE, CA

$3,300

Oct 7, 2024

TOLOWA DEE-NI' NATION

OrganizationSMITH RIVER, CA

$3,300

May 7, 2024

TULE RIVER TRIBAL COUNCIL

OrganizationPORTERVILLE, CA

$3,300

Aug 12, 2024

THE CHICKASAW NATION

OrganizationADA, OK

$2,500

Nov 22, 2023

ONEIDA NATION

OrganizationONEIDA, WI

$1,000

Oct 3, 2023

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$1,000

Jun 5, 2023

ONEIDA INDIAN NATION

OrganizationONEIDA, WI

$1,000

Jun 21, 2024

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$1,000

May 16, 2024

KIMBER, SHELDON

INTERSECT POWER • CEO

IndividualTRUCKEE, CA

$5,000

Apr 27, 2023

Donor Network - Sen. Schiff, Adam B. [D-CA]

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 84 connections

Total contributions: $84

Top Donors - Sen. Schiff, Adam B. [D-CA]

Showing top 12 donors by contribution amount

12 Orgs

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

Minimal

Vector: 54%

Pages: 443-445AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill is a symbolic naming designation for a post office with no connection to energy policy, grid security, or Department of Energy initiatives outlined in Project 2025. There is no thematic or policy overlap between honoring an individual via a postal facility name and the energy-focused objectives in the cited section."

— 411 — Department of Energy and Related Commissions 19. President Donald J. Trump, Executive Order 13920, “Securing the United States Bulk-Power System,” May 1, 2020, in Federal Register, Vol. 85, No. 86 (May 4, 2020), pp. 26595–26599, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/ pkg/FR-2020-05-04/pdf/2020-09695.pdf (accessed February 13, 2023). 20. 18 U.S. Code § 824a(c), https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/16/824a (accessed February 27, 2023). 21. Report No. 117-98, Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, 2022, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. House of Representatives, 117th Cong. 1st Sess., July 20, 2021, p. 6, https:// www.congress.gov/117/crpt/hrpt98/CRPT-117hrpt98.pdf (accessed February 13, 2023). 22. H.R. 3684, Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, Public Law No. 11-58, 117th Congress, November 15, 2021, Division J, Title III. 23. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Chief Financial Officer, Department of Energy FY 2023 Congressional Budget Request, Budget in Brief, p. 7. 24. Timothy Gardner, “White House Asks Congress for $500 mln to Modernize Oil Reserve,” Reuters, November 16, 2022, https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-oil-spr-idAFL1N32C36I (accessed February 13, 2023). 25. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Electricity, “Our History,” https://www.energy.gov/oe/about-us/our- history (accessed February 13, 2023). 26. Press release, “Secretary of Energy Signs Order to Mitigate Security Risks to the Nation’s Electric Grid,” U.S. Department of Energy, December 17, 2021, https://www.energy.gov/articles/secretary-energy-signs-order- mitigate-security-risks-nations-electric-grid (accessed February 13, 2023). 27. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Electricity, “Revocation of Prohibition Order Securing Critical Defense Facilities,” Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 76 (April 22, 2021), pp. 21308–21309, https://www.govinfo.gov/ content/pkg/FR-2021-04-22/pdf/2021-08483.pdf (accessed February 13, 2023). 28. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Chief Financial Officer, Department of Energy FY 2023 Congressional Budget Request, Budget in Brief, pp. 19 and 61. 29. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Nuclear Energy, “About Us,” https://www.energy.gov/ne/about-us (accessed February 13, 2023). 30. H.R. 3809, Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, Public Law No. 97-425, 97th Congress, January 7, 1983, https:// www.congress.gov/97/statute/STATUTE-96/STATUTE-96-Pg2201.pdf (accessed February 24, 2023). 31. The Heritage Foundation, “Budget Blueprint for Fiscal Year 2023: Reduce the DOE Office of Nuclear Energy,” https://www.heritage.org/budget/pages/recommendations/1.270.127.html. 32. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Chief Financial Officer, Department of Energy FY 2023 Congressional Budget Request, Budget in Brief, pp. 23 and 58. 33. 42 USC § 16291, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/16291 (accessed February 27, 2023). 34. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management, “About Us: Mission,” https:// www.energy.gov/fecm/mission (accessed February 13, 2023). 35. U.S. Government Accountability Office, Carbon Capture and Storage: Actions Needed to Improve DOE Management of Demonstration Projects, GAO-22-105111, December2021, https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-22- 105111.pdf (accessed February 13, 2023). 36. International Energy Agency, The Role of Critical Minerals in Clean Energy Transitions, World Energy Outlook Special Report, revised March 2022, https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/ffd2a83b-8c30-4e9d-980a- 52b6d9a86fdc/TheRoleofCriticalMineralsinCleanEnergyTransitions.pdf (accessed February 13, 2023). 37. See 42 U.S. Code § 16291. 38. 42 U.S. Code Ch. 55, §§ 4321–4347, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/chapter-55 (accessed February 27, 2023). 39. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Categorical Exclusions from Environmental Review,” Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking; Request for Comment, Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 87 (May 7, 2021), pp. 24514–24516, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2021-05-07/pdf/2021-09675.pdf (accessed February 27, 2023), and Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Categorical Exclusions from Environmental Review,” Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking; Reopening of Comment Period, Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 160 (August 23, 2021), pp. 47032–47033, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2021-08-23/pdf/2021-18058.pdf (accessed February 27, 2023). 40. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Chief Financial Officer, Department of Energy FY 2023 Congressional Budget Request, Budget in Brief, pp. 19, 21, 23, and 52. — 412 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 41. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Chief Financial Officer, Department of Energy FY 2023 Congressional Budget Request, Budget in Brief, pp. 3, 6, 12, 19, 21, and 23. 42. S. 622, Energy Policy and Conservation Act, Public Law 94-163, 94th Congress, December 22, 1975, https:// www.congress.gov/94/statute/STATUTE-89/STATUTE-89-Pg871.pdf (accessed February 27, 2023). 43. H.R. 6, Energy Policy Act of 2005, Public Law No. 109-58, 109th Congress, August 8, 2005, https://www. congress.gov/109/plaws/publ58/PLAW-109publ58.pdf (accessed February 27, 2023). 44. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, “About the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy,” https://www.energy.gov/eere/about-office-energy-efficiency-and- renewable-energy (accessed February 28, 2023). 45. Ibid. 46. See note 41, supra. 47. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Chief Financial Officer, Department of Energy FY 2023 Congressional Budget Request, Budget in Brief, pp. 19, 23, 43, and 49. 48. See U.S. Department of Energy, Grid Deployment Office, “About Us,” https://www.energy.gov/gdo/about-us (accessed February 13, 2023). 49. U.S. Department of Energy, Grid Deployment Office, “Building a Better Grid Initiative,” https://www.energy. gov/gdo/building-better-grid-initiative (accessed February 13, 2023). 50. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Chief Financial Officer, Department of Energy FY 2023 Congressional Budget Request, Budget in Brief, pp. 2, 19, 21, 23, and 84. “The FY 2023 Budget Request to Congress proposes to split the Electricity appropriation account into two accounts: Electricity and Grid Deployment Office (GDO). Had the proposed FY 2023 structure been in place in FY 2021 and FY 2022, the $7,000,000 shown under the Electricity account’s Transmission Permitting and Technical Assistance (TPTA) program would have appeared under Grid Technical Assistance in GDO and the $3,000,000 shown under Program Direction in the Electricity account represents the estimated share of Electricity PD funding associated with TPTA and would have appeared under Program Direction in GDO.” Ibid., p. 84, note. 51. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations, “About Us: Our Mission,” https://www. energy.gov/oced/about-us (accessed February 13, 2023). 52. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Chief Financial Officer, Department of Energy FY 2023 Congressional Budget Request, Budget in Brief, p. 6. 53. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations, “About Us: Our Story,” https://www. energy.gov/oced/about-us (accessed February 28, 2023). 54. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations, “OCED Project Portfolio,” https://www. energy.gov/oced/office-clean-energy-demonstrations (accessed February 28, 2023). 55. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Chief Financial Officer, Department of Energy FY 2023 Congressional Budget Request, Volume 3, Cybersecurity, Energy Security, and Emergency Response, Federal Energy Management Program, Grid Deployment Office, Indian Energy Policy & Programs, Loan Programs, Manufacturing & Energy Supply Chains, Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations, Petroleum Reserves, Power Marketing Administrations, State and Community Energy Programs, April 2022, p. 104, https://www.energy. gov/sites/default/files/2022-09/doe-fy2023-budget-volume-3-v2.pdf (accessed February 13, 2023). 56. See, for example, ibid., pp. 104 and 107. 57. U.S. Department of Energy, Loan Program Office, “LPO Year in Review 2022: New Legislation,” January 5, 2023, https://www.energy.gov/lpo/articles/lpo-year-review-2022 (accessed February 28, 2023). Emphases in original. 58. H.R. 6256, To Ensure That Goods Made with Forced Labor in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region of the People’s Republic of China Do Not Enter the United States Market, and for Other Purposes, Public Law No. 117-78, 117th Congress, December 23, 2021, https://www.congress.gov/117/plaws/publ78/PLAW-117publ78.pdf (accessed February 28, 2023). 59. H.R. 2272, America COMPETES Act, Public Law 110–69, 110th Congress, August 9, 2007, § 5012, https://www. congress.gov/110/plaws/publ69/PLAW-110publ69.pdf (accessed February 13, 2023). 60. Ibid., § 5012(c)(1). 61. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Chief Financial Officer, Department of Energy FY 2023 Congressional Budget Request, Budget in Brief, March 2022, p. 103.

Financial Regulatory Agencies

Minimal

Vector: 52%

Pages: 875-878AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill is a symbolic naming designation for a post office with no connection to financial regulatory agencies, civil penalty funds, or any of the specific Policy 2025 objectives outlined in the Financial Regulatory Agencies section."

— 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

Executive Office of the President of the United States

Minimal

Vector: 52%

Pages: 99-102AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill is a symbolic naming designation for a post office with no policy substance, while the Project 2025 excerpt lists historical executive orders, laws, and documents related to federalism, property rights, privacy, grants, regulatory accountability, and other governance topics—none of which are addressed or implied by the bill."

Key themes:federal facilitynaming designation

— 66 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 17. President William J. Clinton, Executive Order 13132, “Federalism,” August 4, 1999, in Federal Register, Vol. 64, No. 153 (August 10, 1999), pp. 43255–43259, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-1999-08-10/pdf/99- 20729.pdf (accessed January 31, 2023). 18. President Ronald Reagan, Executive Order 12630, “Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights,” March 15, 1988, in Federal Register, Vol. 53, No. 53 (March 18, 1988), pp. 8859–8862, https://www.regulationwriters.com/downloads/Executive_Orders/EO_12630.pdf (accessed January 31, 2023). 19. Section 115 in H.R. 4577, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2001, Public Law No. 106-544, 106th Congress, December 21, 2000, https://www.congress.gov/106/plaws/publ554/PLAW-106publ554.pdf (accessed January 31, 2023). 20. H.R. 6410, Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, Public Law No. 96-511, 96th Congress, December 11, 1980, https:// www.congress.gov/96/statute/STATUTE-94/STATUTE-94-Pg2812.pdf (accessed January 31, 2023). 21. S. 3418, An Act to Amend Title 5, United States Code, by Adding a Section 552a, to Safeguard Individual Privacy from the Misuse of Federal Records, to Provide that Individuals Be Granted Access to Records Concerning Them Which Are Maintained by Federal Agencies, to Establish a Privacy Protection Study Commission, and for Other Purposes (Privacy Act of 1974), Public Law No. 93-579, 93rd Congress, December 31, 1974, https://www.congress.gov/93/statute/STATUTE-88/STATUTE-88-Pg1896.pdf (accessed January 31, 2023). 22. Office of Management and Budget, “Guidance for Grants and Agreements,” Final Guidance, Federal Register, Vol. 85, No. 157 (August 13, 2020), pp. 49506–49582, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2020-08-13/ pdf/2020-17468.pdf (accessed January 31, 2023), and “Guidance for Grants and Agreements,” Correcting Amendments, Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 33 (February 22, 2021), pp. 10439–10440, https://www.govinfo. gov/content/pkg/FR-2021-02-22/pdf/2021-02969.pdf (accessed January 31, 2023). 23. H.R. 5, Regulatory Accountability Act of 2017, 115th Congress, introduced January 3, 2017, https://www. congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/5 (accessed January 31, 20/23), and S. 951, Regulatory Accountability Act of 2017, 115th Congress, introduced April 26, 2017, https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th- congress/senate-bill/951 (accessed January 31, 2023). 24. S. 2314, Social Media Addiction Reduction Technology Act (SMART Act), 116th Congress, introduced July 30, 2019, https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/2314/text (accessed January 31, 2023). 25. H.R. 1605, Guidance Out of Darkness Act (GOOD Act), 117th Congress, introduced March 8, 2021, https://www. congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/1605 (accessed January 31, 2023). 26. S. 2804, Early Participation in Regulations Act of 2021, 117th Congress, introduced September 22, 2021, https:// www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/2804 (accessed January 31, 2023). 27. S. 170, Unfunded Mandates Accountability and Transparency Act, 117th Congress, introduced February 2, 2021, https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/170 (accessed January 31, 2023). 28. H.R. 277, Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2023 (REINS Act), 118th Congress, introduced January 11, 2023, https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/277/all-info?r=217 (accessed January 31, 2023). 29. Subtitle E, “Congressional Review,” in H.R. 3136, Contract with America Advancement Act of 1996, Public Law No. 104-121, 104th Congress, March 29, 1996, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-104publ121/pdf/ PLAW-104publ121.pdf (accessed January 31, 2023). 30. H.R. 115, Midnight Rules Relief Act of 2023, 118th Congress, introduced January 9, 2023, https://www.congress. gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/115/text?s=1&r=18 (accessed January 31, 2023). 31. See Federation of American Scientists, Intelligence Resource Program, “Presidential Directives and Executive Orders,” https://irp.fas.org/offdocs/direct.htm (accessed February 1, 2023), and Library of Congress, Researchers, Newspaper and Current Periodical Reading Room, “Presidential Directives and Where to Find Them,” March 30, 2022, https://www.loc.gov/rr/news/directives.html (accessed February 1, 2023). 32. President Donald J. Trump, Executive Order 13803, “Reviving the National Space Council,” June 30, 2017, in Federal Register, Vol. 82, No. 129 (July 7, 2017), pp. 31429–31432, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR- 2017-07-07/pdf/2017-14378.pdf (accessed February 1, 2023). — 67 — Executive Office of the President of the United States 33. H.R. 10230, National Science and Technology Policy, Organization, and Priorities Act of 1976, Public Law No. 94-282, 94th Congress, May 11, 1976, https://www.congress.gov/94/statute/STATUTE-90/STATUTE-90-Pg459. pdf (accessed February 1, 2023). 34. H.R. 4346, CHIPS [Creating Helpful Incentives to Produce Semiconductors] and Science Act, Public Law No. 117-167, 117th Congress, August 9, 2022, https://www.congress.gov/117/plaws/publ167/PLAW-117publ167.pdf (accessed February 1, 2023). 35. S. 169, Global Change Research Act of 1990, Public Law No. 101-606, 101st Congress, November 16, 1990, https://www.congress.gov/101/statute/STATUTE-104/STATUTE-104-Pg3096.pdf (accessed February 1, 2023). 36. S. 1075, National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Public Law No. 91-190, 91st Congress, January 1, 1970, https://uscode.house.gov/statutes/pl/91/190.pdf (accessed February 1, 2023). 37. Andrus v. Sierra Club, 442 U.S. 347, 358 (1979), https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep442/ usrep442347/usrep442347.pdf (accessed March 7, 2023). 38. Title XLI (41) in H.R. 22, Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act), Public Law No. 114-94, 114th Congress, December 4, 2015, https://www.congress.gov/114/statute/STATUTE-129/STATUTE-129-Pg1312.pdf (accessed February 1, 2023). 39. President Donald J. Trump, Executive Order 13807, “Establishing Discipline and Accountability in the Environmental Review and Permitting Process for Infrastructure Projects,” August 15, 2017, in Federal Register, Vol. 82, No. 163 (August 24, 2017), pp. 40463–40469, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2017-08-24/ pdf/2017-18134.pdf (accessed February 1, 2023). 40. H.R. 5210, Anti-Drug Abuse of 1988, Public Law No. 100-690, 100th Congress, November 18, 1988, https://www. congress.gov/100/statute/STATUTE-102/STATUTE-102-Pg4181.pdf (accessed February 1, 2023). 41. President Joseph R. Biden Jr., Executive Order 14020, “Establishment of the White House Gender Policy Council,” March 8, 2021, in Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 46 (March 11, 2021), pp. 13797–13801, https://www. govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2021-03-11/pdf/2021-05183.pdf (accessed January 31, 2023). 42. U.S. Constitution, Amendment XXV, https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxxv (accessed March 9, 2023). 43. 50 U.S.C. § 3021(c)(1), https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/3021 (accessed March 9, 2023). 44. 20 U.S.C. § 20(a), https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/20/42#:~:text=The%20business%20of%20the%20 Institution%20shall%20be%20conducted,no%20two%20of%20them%20of%20the%20same%20State (accessed March 9, 2023). 45. Vice Presidents Gerald Ford and Lyndon Johnson assumed (Ford) or initially assumed (Johnson) the office of the presidency by a process of succession.

Environmental Protection Agency

Minimal

Vector: 52%

Pages: 479-481AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill is a purely symbolic naming designation for a post office with no connection to environmental policy, EPA functions, or the regulatory provisions listed in the Project 2025 EPA section. There is no thematic or policy overlap between honoring an individual via a postal facility name and the EPA-related legal and regulatory objectives outlined in Project 2025."

— 447 — Environmental Protection Agency 19. 42 U.S. Code § 7426(b), https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/7426 (accessed January 26, 2023). 20. 42 U.S. Code § 7410(k)(5)–(6), https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/7410 (accessed January 26, 2023). 21. 42 U.S. Code § 7601(a), https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/7601 (accessed January 26, 2023). 22. 42 U.S. Code § 7675, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/7675 (accessed January 26, 2023). 23. 42 U.S. Code § 7411, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/7411 (accessed January 26, 2023). 24. 42 U.S. Code § 7411(d). 25. 42 U.S. Code § 7412, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/7412 (accessed January 26, 2023). 26. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Summary of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. §1251 et seq. (1972),” last updated July 6, 2022, https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-clean-water-act (accessed January 26, 2023). 27. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Summary of the Safe Drinking Water Act, 42 U.S.C. §300f et seq, (1974),” last updated September 12, 2022, https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-safe-drinking- water-acthttps://www.epa.gov/sdwa (accessed January 26, 2023). 28. Memorandum from David P. Ross, Assistant Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, to Office of Water Program Directors, “Subject: Office of Water Policy for Draft Documents,” August 6, 2019, https:// www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2020-12/documents/ow_policy_for_draft_documents_to_ow_program_ directors_signed_002.pdf (accessed January 26, 2023). 29. 33 U.S. Code § 1341, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/33/1341 (accessed January 26, 2023). 30. Rapanos v. United States, 547 U.S. 715 (2006), https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/547/04-1034/ index.pdf (accessed January 25, 2023). 31. 33 U.S. Code § 1318, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/33/1318 (accessed January 26, 2023). 32. 33 U.S. Code § 1342, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/33/1342 (accessed January 26, 2023). 33. 33 U.S. Code § 1344, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/33/1344 (accessed January 26, 2023). 34. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Summary of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C. §6901 et seq. (1976),” last updated September 12, 2022, https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary- resource-conservation-and-recovery-act (accessed January 27, 2023). 35. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Summary of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (Superfund), 42 U.S.C. §9601 et seq. (1980),” last updated September 12, 2022, https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-comprehensive-environmental-response- compensation-and-liability-act (accessed January 27, 2023). 36. 42 U.S. Code § 7412(r), https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/7412 (accessed January 27, 2023). 37. 42 U.S. Code § 6924(n), https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/6924 (accessed January 27, 2023). 38. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Summary of the Toxic Substances Control Act, 15 U.S.C. §2601 et seq. (1976),” last updated October 4, 2022, https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-toxic-substances- control-act (accessed January 27, 2023). 39. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Summary of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, 7 U.S.C. §136 et seq. (1996),” last updated September 12, 2022, https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/ summary-federal-insecticide-fungicide-and-rodenticide-act (accessed January 27, 2023). 40. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Summary of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. §301 et seq. (2002),” last updated September 12, 2022, https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-federal- food-drug-and-cosmetic-act (accessed January 27, 2023). 41. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act,” last updated March 24, 2022, https://www.epa.gov/assessing-and-managing-chemicals-under-tsca/frank-r- lautenberg-chemical-safety-21st-century-act (accessed January 27, 2023), and “Highlights of Key Provisions in the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act for the 21st Century,” last updated February 12, 2020, https:// www.epa.gov/assessing-and-managing-chemicals-under-tsca/highlights-key-provisions-frank-r-lautenberg- chemical (accessed January 27, 2023). 42. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Summary of the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. §1531 et seq. (1973),” last updated September 12, 2022, https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-endangered- species-act (accessed January 27, 2023). 43. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “PRIA Overview and History,” last updated July 19, 2022, https://www. epa.gov/pria-fees/pria-overview-and-history (accessed January 27, 2023). — 448 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 44. Table, “EPA Budget by National Program Manager and Major Office,” in U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, United States Environmental Protection Agency Fiscal Year 2023 Justification of Appropriation Estimates for the Committee on Appropriations, p. 1076. 45. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “All Federal Advisory Committees at EPA,” last updated March 10, 2023, https://www.epa.gov/faca/all-federal-advisory-committees-epa (accessed March 20, 2023). 46. For example, EPA has steadfastly refused to follow Clean Air Act requirements that the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee provide, in the words of the U.S. Supreme Court, “unquestionably pertinent” advice on the “relative contribution to air pollution concentrations of natural… activity” as well as “any adverse public health, welfare, social, economic, or energy effects which may result from various strategies for attainment and maintenance” of the NAAQS. Memorandum from E. Scott Pruitt, Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, to Assistant Administrators, “Subject: Back-to-Basics Process for Reviewing National Ambient Air Quality Standards,” May 9, 2018, p. 4, https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2018-05/documents/ image2018-05-09-173219.pdf (accessed January 25, 2023) (cited hereafter as Pruitt Memorandum, May 9, 2018), and Whitman v. American Trucking Associations, 531 U.S. 457, 470 n.2 (2001), https://supreme. justia.com/cases/federal/us/531/457/case.pdF (accessed January 25, 2023). Similarly, EPA has refused to follow legal requirements dating to the late 1970s regarding congressional requests for scientific advice. Pruitt Memorandum, May 9, 2018; U.S. Government Accountability Office, “EPA Science and Advisory Panels: Preliminary Observations on the Processes for Providing Scientific Advice,” testimony of J. Alfredo Gómez, Director, Natural Resources and Environment, GAO, before the Subcommittee on Superfund, Waste Management, and Regulatory Oversight, Committee on Environment and Public Works, U.S. Senate, GAO-15-636T, May 20, 2015, https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-15-636t (accessed January 25, 2023); and U.S. Government Accountability Office, “EPA Science Advisory Board: Policy Statement on Science Quality and Integrity,” GAO-17-526R, June 8, 2017, https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-17-526r.pdf (accessed January 25, 2023). 47. 31 U.S. Code § 3729 et seq., https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/3729 (accessed March 20, 2023). 48. See Pruitt Memorandum, May 9, 2018. 49. H.R. 4383, Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, 92nd Congress, October 6, 1972, https://www. congress.gov/92/statute/STATUTE-86/STATUTE-86-Pg770.pdf (accessed March 20, 2023). 50. 15 U.S. Code Chapter 56A, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/chapter-56A (accessed January 27, 2023). 51. Indian Environmental General Assistance Act of 1992, 42 U.S. Code § 4368b, https://www.law.cornell.edu/ uscode/text/42/4368b (accessed January 27, 2023). 52. See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of General Counsel, EPA Legal Tools to Advance Environmental Justice, May 2022, https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-05/EJ%20Legal%20 Tools%20May%202022%20FINAL.pdf (accessed January 25, 2023), and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of General Counsel, Office of Policy, “Interim Environmental Justice and Civil Rights in Permitting Frequently Asked Questions,” August 2022, https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-08/EJ%20 and%20CR%20in%20PERMITTING%20FAQs%20508%20compliant.pdf (accessed January 25, 2023). 53. 2 U.S. Code §§ 2000d–2000d-7, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/chapter-21/subchapter-V (accessed January 27, 2023). 54. Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. University of North Carolina, No. 1:14CV954 (M.D.N.C. Sep. 30, 2019), https://www.leagle.com/decision/infdco20191008j38 (accessed January 27, 2023). 55. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Region 2 Environmental Justice Action Plan, p. 24, https://www. epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-03/documents/region_2_environmental_justice_action_plan.pdf (accessed January 27, 2023). 56. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Summary of the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. §4321 et seq. (1969),” last updated September 12, 2022, https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-national- environmental-policy-act (accessed January 27, 2023). 57. 31 U.S. Code § 1115, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/1115 (accessed January 27, 2023).

Department of Health and Human Services

Minimal

Vector: 52%

Pages: 533-535AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill is a symbolic naming designation for a post office with no connection to healthcare, HHS, or any policy objectives in the Project 2025 HHS section, which focuses on healthcare regulations, abortion policy, civil rights, and social services."

— 501 — Department of Health and Human Services 54. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Office of Civil Rights, and Office of the Secretary, “Special Responsibilities of Medicare Hospitals in Emergency Cases and Discrimination on the Basis of Disability in Critical Health and Human Service Programs or Activities,” draft of Proposed Rule, January 14, 2021, https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/infants-nprm.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 55. H.R. 26, Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, 118th Congress, introduced January 9, 2023, https:// www.congress.gov/118/bills/hr26/BILLS-118hr26pcs.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 56. H.R. 7, No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act of 2023, 118th Congress, introduced January 9, 2023, https://www.congress.gov/118/bills/hr7/BILLS-118hr7ih.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 57. S. 401, Conscience Protection Act of 2021, 117th Congress, introduced February 24, 2021, https://www.congress. gov/117/bills/s401/BILLS-117s401is.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 58. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and Office of the Secretary, “Nondiscrimination in Health Programs and Activities,” Notice of Proposed Rulemaking; Notice of Tribal Consultation, Federal Register, Vol. 87, No. 149 (August 4, 2022), pp. 47824–47920, https://www.govinfo. gov/content/pkg/FR-2022-08-04/pdf/2022-16217.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 59. Ibid., p. 47916. 60. The regulation was not finalized before the end of the Administration. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Services, “Revision of Categorical Eligibility in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP),” Proposed Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 142 (July 24, 2019), pp. 35570–55581, https:// www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/07/24/2019-15670/revision-of-categorical-eligibility-in-the- supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program-snap (accessed March 17, 2023). 61. 45 Code of Federal Regulations § 75.300(c) and (d), https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-45/subtitle-A/ subchapter-A/part-75/subpart-D/subject-group-ECFR911e5e1a30bfbcb/section-75.300 (accessed March 17, 2023). 62. H.R. 1750, Child Welfare Provider Inclusion Act of 2021, 117th Congress, introduced March 10, 2021, https:// www.congress.gov/117/bills/hr1750/BILLS-117hr1750ih.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023), and S. 656, Child Welfare Provider Inclusion Act of 2021, 117th Congress, introduced March 10, 2021, https://www.congress.gov/117/bills/ s656/BILLS-117s656is.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 63. S. 3949, Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2022, Public Law No. 117-348, 117th Congress, January 25, 2023, https://www.congress.gov/117/plaws/publ348/PLAW-117publ348.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 64. Kelsey Y. Santamaria, “Child Migrants at the Border: The Flores Settlement Agreement and Other Legal Developments,” Congressional Research Service In Focus No. IF11799, April 1, 2021, https://crsreports.congress. gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11799 (accessed March 17, 2023). 65. Report, Building a Happy Home: Marriage Education as a Tool to Strengthen Families, Social Capital Project Report No. 1-22, March 2022, p. 17, https://www.jec.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/3d102525-6f0d-48ed- 92f4-d71edd468ad6/building-a-happy-home.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). The cover of the report reflects that the Social Capital Project is “[a] project of the Joint Economic Committee – Republicans.” 66. See, for example, Alan J. Hawkins, “Are Federally Supported Relationship Education Programs for Lower-Income Individuals and Couples Working? A Review of Evaluation Research,” American Enterprise Institute, September 2019, https://www. congress.gov/117/plaws/publ228/PLAW-117publ228.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 67. H.R. 8404, Respect for Marriage Act, Public Law No. 117-228, 117th Congress, December 13, 2022, https://www. congress.gov/117/plaws/publ228/PLAW-117publ228.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 68. Madison Marino, “Over 1,000 Safety Violations Mar Head Start. Children Deserve Better,” Heritage Foundation Commentary, November 10, 2022, https://www.heritage.org/education/commentary/over-1000-safety- violations-mar-head-start-children-deserve-better. 69. American Hospital Association v. Becerra, 596 U.S. ___ (2022), https://www.supremecourt.gov/ opinions/21pdf/20-1114_09m1.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 70. U.S. Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service; U.S. Department of Labor, Employee Benefits Security Administration; and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, “Coverage of Certain Preventive Services Under the Affordable Care Act,” Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Federal Register, Vol. 88, No. 22 (February 2, 2023), pp. 7236–7281, https://www. govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2023-02-02/pdf/2023-01981.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). — 502 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 71. 42 U.S. Code § 238n, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/238n (accessed March 17, 2023). 72. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Health Resources and Services Administration, “Early Childhood Health,” last reviewed October 2022, https://mchb.hrsa.gov/programs-impact/focus-areas/early- childhood-health (accessed March 17, 2023). 73. American Pregnancy Association, “Having a Doula—What Are the Benefits?” https://americanpregnancy. org/healthy-pregnancy/labor-and-birth/having-a-doula/#:~:text=Other%20studies%20have%20shown%20 that%20having%20a%20doula,massage%20to%20reduce%20stress%20and%20anxiety%20during%20labor (accessed March 17, 2023). 74. S. 2372, VA MISSION [Maintaining Internal Systems and Strengthening Integrated Outside Networks] Act of 2018, Public Law No. 115-182, 115th Congress, June 6, 2018, https://www.congress.gov/115/plaws/publ182/ PLAW-115publ182.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 75. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, “Securing Updated and Necessary Statutory Evaluations Timely,” Final Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 11 (January 19, 2021), pp. 5694–5764, https://www.govinfo. gov/content/pkg/FR-2021-01-19/pdf/2021-00597.pdf (accessed March 22, 2023). 76. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Secretary, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, “Compliance with Statutory Program Integrity Requirements,” Final Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 42 (March 4, 2029), pp. 7714–7791, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-03-04/pdf/2019-03461.pdf (accessed March 18, 2023). 77. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Secretary, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, “Ensuring Access to Equitable, Affordable, Client-Centered, Quality Family Planning Services,” Final Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 192 (October 7, 2021), pp. 56144–56180, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/ pkg/FR-2021-10-07/pdf/2021-21542.pdf (accessed March 18, 2023). 78. S. 624, Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act, 118th Congress, introduced March 2, 2023, https://www. congress.gov/118/bills/s624/BILLS-118s624is.pdf (accessed March 18, 2023). 79. 50 U.S. Code Chapter 55, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/chapter-55 (accessed March 22, 2023). 80. 18 U.S. Code § 13, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/13 (accessed March 18, 2023). 81. Bowen v. American Hospital Association, 476 U.S. 610 (1986), https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/ usrep/usrep476/usrep476610/usrep476610.pdf (accessed 22, 2023). 82. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Secretary, “Notification of Interpretation and Enforcement of Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972,” Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 99 (May 25, 2021), pp. 27984–27985, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR- 2021-05-25/pdf/2021-10477.pdf (accessed March 18, 2023). 83. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office for Civil Rights, “HHS Notice and Guidance on Gender Affirming Care, Civil Rights, and Patient Privacy,” March 2, 2022, https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/hhs- ocr-notice-and-guidance-gender-affirming-care.pdf (accessed March 18, 2023). 84. Heckler v. Chaney, 420 U.S. 821 (1985), https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/470/821.html (accessed March 18, 2022). 85. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office for Civil Rights, “Guidance to Nation’s Retail Pharmacies: Obligations Under Federal Civil Rights Laws to Ensure Access to Comprehensive Reproductive Health Care Services,” content last reviewed July 14, 2022, https://www.hhs.gov/civil-rights/for-individuals/ special-topics/reproductive-healthcare/pharmacies-guidance/index.html (accessed March 18, 2023). 86. H.R. 3103, “Health Insurance and Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, Public Law No. 104-191, 104th Congress, August 21, 1996, https://www.congress.gov/104/plaws/publ191/PLAW-104publ191.pdf (accessed March 18, 2023). 87. U.S. Department of Human Services, “HIPAA Privacy Rule and Disclosures of Information Relating to Reproductive Health Care,” content last reviewed June 29, 2022, (accessed March 18, 2023). See also “Protecting the Privacy and Security of Your Health Information When Using Your Personal Cell Phone or Tablet,” content last reviewed June 29, 2022, https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/privacy/guidance/ cell-phone-hipaa/index.html (accessed March 18, 2023).

Showing 3 of 5 policy matches

About These Correlations

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

Related Bills

Other Bills by Sen. Schiff, Adam B.

Rim of the Valley Corridor Preservation Act

119/s/1870

USS Frank E. Evans Act

119/s/3131

Bay Area Ridge National Scenic Trail Feasibility Study Act

119/s/3720

Back to All Bills

A bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 6444 San Fernando Road in Glendale, California, as the "Paul Ignatius Post Office".