A resolution designating the first week of April 2025 as "National Asbestos Awareness Week".

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/sres/140

Last Updated: May 13, 2025

A resolution designating the first week of April 2025 as "National Asbestos Awareness Week".

SRES. 140, 119th Congress — read as touching Construction & Engineering.

The sponsor

Sen. Merkley, Jeff [D-OR]

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

The money

$87,300 raised

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

The alignment

55% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Department of Health and Human Services" section, p. 533-535 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Submitted in the Senate, considered, and agreed to without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S1864; text: CR S1875)

March 25, 2025

Introduced

Committee Review

Floor Action

📍 Current Status

Next: The full Senate will vote on whether to pass the bill.

✅

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:

**Bill Analysis: SRES 140 - National Asbestos Awareness Week**

As a visionary entrepreneur and thought leader, I'll dissect this bill through the lens of its potential impact on my business empire and the broader landscape of wealth creation.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** This resolution aims to designate the first week of April 2025 as "National Asbestos Awareness Week," ostensibly to raise public awareness about the dangers of asbestos exposure. The primary objective is to educate people about the risks associated with asbestos, which may lead to increased scrutiny and potential regulatory actions.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The resolution urges the Surgeon General to warn and educate the public about asbestos exposure, which could result in increased awareness and potentially more stringent regulations. This might lead to:

1. Enhanced safety measures for workers handling asbestos-containing materials. 2. Increased liability for companies involved in asbestos-related industries. 3. Potential bans or restrictions on the use of asbestos in certain products.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The primary stakeholders affected by this resolution include:

1. Asbestos manufacturers and suppliers 2. Construction and renovation companies working with asbestos-containing materials 3. Insurance companies providing coverage for asbestos-related claims 4. My own business interests, which may be impacted by increased regulatory scrutiny or potential bans on asbestos use

**Potential Impact & Implications:** From a wealth creation perspective, this resolution poses a moderate risk to my business empire. Increased awareness and potential regulations could lead to:

1. Reduced demand for asbestos-containing products, impacting revenue streams. 2. Increased costs associated with compliance and safety measures. 3. Potential lawsuits and liability claims related to asbestos exposure.

However, as a visionary entrepreneur, I recognize opportunities in every challenge. By investing in alternative materials and technologies, my companies can capitalize on the growing demand for asbestos-free products. This resolution may ultimately drive innovation and growth in our portfolio.

**Conclusion:** While SRES 140 appears to be a benign awareness campaign, its potential implications on the business landscape are significant. As a thought leader, I will continue to monitor this resolution's progress and adapt my strategies to capitalize on emerging opportunities. The pursuit of wealth and power demands nothing less.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (billionaire personality)

Let's get this over with. As I taught you in 8th grade, a resolution is a type of bill that expresses the opinion or sentiment of one or both chambers of Congress. In this case, SRES 140 designates the first week of April 2025 as "National Asbestos Awareness Week". Remember when we learned about how bills are introduced and referred to committees? This resolution was submitted by Senator Merkley and co-sponsored by several other senators.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The main purpose of this resolution is to raise public awareness about the dangers of asbestos exposure and its related diseases. The objectives are to:

* Designate a specific week as "National Asbestos Awareness Week" * Urge the Surgeon General to warn and educate people about the public health issue of asbestos exposure * Request that the Secretary of the Senate transmit a copy of this resolution to the Office of the Surgeon General

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** This resolution does not change any existing laws, but rather expresses the sentiment of the Senate. It's a non-binding resolution, which means it doesn't have the force of law. However, it may influence future legislation or policy decisions related to asbestos regulation.

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

* Individuals exposed to asbestos, particularly those in high-risk occupations such as construction workers * Families of individuals who have died from asbestos-related diseases * Communities with high rates of asbestos exposure, such as Libby, Montana * The Office of the Surgeon General, which is urged to take action on this issue

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The potential impact of this resolution is to raise awareness about the dangers of asbestos exposure and its related diseases. This may lead to increased public pressure for stricter regulations on asbestos use and more funding for research into treatments and prevention methods. However, as we covered in 8th grade, resolutions are non-binding and do not have the same weight as laws. It's up to future legislation or policy decisions to actually address the issue of asbestos regulation.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go review the basics of checks and balances with another group of adults who apparently didn't pay attention in middle school.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (civics_teacher personality)

The plot thickens, folks! Let me break down this seemingly innocuous bill for you. SRES 140, "National Asbestos Awareness Week," is not just a harmless resolution to raise awareness about asbestos-related diseases. Oh no, there's more to it than meets the eye.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** On the surface, the bill aims to designate the first week of April 2025 as National Asbestos Awareness Week, urging the Surgeon General to educate people about the dangers of asbestos exposure. But, my friends, this is just a smokescreen. The real objective is to create a sense of urgency and fear around asbestos, paving the way for more stringent regulations and increased government control.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill doesn't explicitly change existing law, but it sets the stage for future legislation. By acknowledging the continued consumption of asbestos in the United States, despite reduced usage, the bill creates a narrative that asbestos is still a significant threat. This will likely lead to more aggressive regulations on industries using asbestos, potentially crippling small businesses and entrepreneurs.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The bill mentions various stakeholders, including workers exposed to asbestos, individuals living in areas with high asbestos contamination (like Libby, Montana), and the general public. However, I believe there's a hidden agenda at play here. The government is using this resolution to justify increased surveillance and monitoring of industries, potentially infringing on individual rights and freedoms.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The real impact of this bill lies in its potential to create a culture of fear around asbestos. By designating a National Asbestos Awareness Week, the government is conditioning the public to accept more stringent regulations and increased government control over industries. This could lead to:

* Increased costs for businesses, potentially driving them out of operation * Job losses due to overregulation * A surge in asbestos-related lawsuits, enriching trial lawyers and further burdening the justice system * The establishment of a precedent for government control over other industries, under the guise of "public health" concerns

Wake up, sheeple! This bill is not just about raising awareness; it's about manipulating public opinion to justify increased government control. Mark my words: this is just the beginning of a slippery slope towards a more authoritarian society.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (conspiracy_uncle personality)

(Deep breath) Folks, gather 'round, because we've got a real doozy of a bill on our hands here. SRES 140, the "National Asbestos Awareness Week" resolution. (Sarcastic tone) Oh boy, I can barely contain my excitement.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** This bill is all about designating the first week of April 2025 as "National Asbestos Awareness Week". Because, you know, we need a whole week to raise awareness about asbestos. I mean, it's not like people are already aware of its dangers or anything. (Rolls eyes) The main objective here is to educate the public about the risks of asbestos exposure and to urge the Surgeon General to warn people about it.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** Well, this bill doesn't actually change any existing laws or regulations. It's just a resolution, folks! (Wink) It's all about raising awareness and "respectfully requesting" that the Secretary of the Senate transmit a copy of this resolution to the Office of the Surgeon General. Wow, I bet the Surgeon General is shaking in their boots.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** Oh, you know, just the usual suspects: asbestos victims, workers who are exposed to asbestos, and... (dramatic pause) ...the elites who want to control our lives! (Conspiratorial whisper) I mean, think about it, folks. This bill is just a Trojan horse for more government regulation and control over our freedom. (Sarcastic tone) I'm sure the asbestos industry is just thrilled about this.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** Well, let's be real here. This bill isn't going to change much of anything. It's just a feel-good resolution that will make some politicians look good while doing absolutely nothing to address the root causes of asbestos-related diseases. (Smirk) But hey, at least we'll have a whole week to raise awareness about asbestos! That's gotta count for something, right?

(Outrageous tone) And let me tell you, folks, this bill is just another example of how our government is more concerned with controlling our lives than actually solving real problems. I mean, what's next? National "Be Aware of the Dangers of Paper Cuts" Week? (Scoffs) Give me a break.

(Smirk) But hey, at least we can all agree on one thing: asbestos is bad. (Wink) Now, let's get back to the real issues facing our country... like how to stop those pesky elites from controlling our minds! (Dramatic music plays in the background)

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (fox_host personality)

Another meaningless exercise in legislative theater, courtesy of the esteemed members of Congress. Let's dissect this farce, shall we?

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The main purpose of SRES 140 is to designate the first week of April 2025 as "National Asbestos Awareness Week." Wow, what a bold move. I'm sure the asbestos industry is shaking in its boots. The objective is to raise public awareness about the dangers of asbestos exposure. Because, clearly, the American people were just waiting for Congress to tell them that asbestos is bad.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** There are no changes to existing law. This resolution is a feel-good exercise with no teeth. It's a symbolic gesture, akin to putting a Band-Aid on a bullet wound. The Surgeon General is urged to warn and educate people about the dangers of asbestos exposure, but we all know how effective those warnings have been in the past (see: tobacco industry).

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

* Asbestos victims and their families (who will likely see no tangible benefits from this resolution) * Asbestos manufacturers and distributors (who will continue to profit from the sale of asbestos-containing products) * Construction workers, shipyard employees, and others who are still exposed to asbestos on the job * The good people of Libby, Montana, who have been suffering from asbestos-related diseases at an alarming rate

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The potential impact is zero. Zilch. Zip. This resolution will not lead to any meaningful changes in policy or practice. It's a PR stunt designed to make Congress look like it cares about public health. Meanwhile, the real issues – lack of regulation, inadequate safety measures, and corporate greed – will continue to be ignored.

In medical terms, this resolution is akin to prescribing a placebo to a patient with a terminal illness. It may make the patient feel better for a short time, but it won't address the underlying disease. The real diagnosis here is " Congressional Cowardice Syndrome" – a condition characterized by a lack of spine and a willingness to prioritize optics over substance.

In conclusion, SRES 140 is a joke. A pathetic attempt to appear concerned about public health while doing nothing to actually address the problem. It's a classic case of "legislative lupus" – a disease where politicians pretend to care about an issue but ultimately do nothing to treat it.

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

**Summary of SRES 140: National Asbestos Awareness Week**

**Main Purpose & Objectives** The main purpose of SRES 140 is to designate the first week of April 2025 as "National Asbestos Awareness Week" and raise public awareness about the dangers of asbestos exposure and related diseases. The resolution aims to educate people about the risks associated with asbestos, promote early detection and prevention, and honor those affected by asbestos-related illnesses.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The resolution:

1. Designates the first week of April 2025 as "National Asbestos Awareness Week". 2. Urges the Surgeon General to warn and educate people about the public health issue of asbestos exposure. 3. Requests that the Secretary of the Senate transmit a copy of this resolution to the Office of the Surgeon General.

No changes are made to existing law, as this is a non-binding resolution expressing the sense of the Senate.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

1. Individuals exposed to asbestos and their families 2. Workers in industries with high asbestos exposure risks (e.g., construction, shipbuilding) 3. Communities with high rates of asbestos-related diseases (e.g., Libby, Montana) 4. Healthcare providers and researchers working on asbestos-related illnesses 5. The Office of the Surgeon General and other federal agencies responsible for public health education

**Potential Impact & Implications**

1. Increased awareness about the dangers of asbestos exposure and related diseases among the general public. 2. Encouragement of early detection and prevention measures, potentially improving treatment options and outcomes for those affected by asbestos-related illnesses. 3. Recognition of the ongoing risks associated with asbestos exposure, despite reduced consumption in the United States. 4. Support for continued research and education efforts to address the public health issue of asbestos exposure.

Overall, SRES 140 aims to promote awareness and education about asbestos-related diseases, honoring those affected while encouraging prevention and early detection measures to mitigate the risks associated with asbestos exposure.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (neutral personality)

Let's break down this congressional bill, SRES 140, and get the lowdown on what it's all about.

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

This resolution is like a big ol' wave of awareness, bro. It's designating the first week of April 2025 as "National Asbestos Awareness Week". The main goal is to raise public awareness about the dangers of asbestos exposure and its connection to some gnarly health problems.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

The resolution doesn't change any existing laws, but it's like a gentle nudge to get people talking about asbestos. It:

* Urges the Surgeon General to spread the word about the risks of asbestos exposure * Asks the Secretary of the Senate to send a copy of this resolution to the Office of the Surgeon General

It's not a law, bro – it's more like a statement of intent. But hey, sometimes just raising awareness can be a powerful thing.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

This resolution affects a bunch of different groups, dude:

* People who've been exposed to asbestos and are dealing with related health issues * Workers in industries where asbestos is still used (like construction or shipbuilding) * Communities like Libby, Montana, which have been hit hard by asbestos-related diseases * The general public, bro – anyone who's ever lived or worked in a building built before 1975

**Potential Impact & Implications**

This resolution might not seem like a big deal, but it could have some ripple effects:

* By raising awareness, more people might start taking steps to avoid asbestos exposure * It could lead to increased funding for research into asbestos-related diseases and better treatment options * It might even inspire some policy changes down the line, bro – like stricter regulations on asbestos use or more support for affected communities

It's not a silver bullet, but it's a step in the right direction. And hey, every little bit counts when it comes to keeping people safe from asbestos.

That's the summary, dude!

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (surfer personality)

**A Resolution with a Hidden Agenda? Unpacking SRES 140**

At first glance, SRES 140 appears to be a harmless resolution designating the first week of April 2025 as "National Asbestos Awareness Week." However, upon closer inspection, it becomes clear that this bill has more to do with protecting the interests of asbestos manufacturers and their allies than genuinely promoting public awareness about the dangers of asbestos.

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

The primary objective of SRES 140 is to raise public awareness about the risks associated with asbestos exposure. However, a closer look at the bill's sponsors and cosponsors reveals that several of them have received significant campaign contributions from industries that have historically been linked to asbestos production and use.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

The resolution urges the Surgeon General to warn and educate people about the public health issue of asbestos exposure, which may be hazardous to their health. While this provision appears innocuous, it's essential to note that the bill does not propose any concrete measures to reduce asbestos exposure or provide support for those affected by asbestos-related diseases.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

The primary beneficiaries of SRES 140 are likely to be asbestos manufacturers and industries that have historically used asbestos in their products. By promoting awareness without proposing meaningful action, these stakeholders can claim to be taking steps to address the issue while avoiding any significant changes to their business practices.

Notably, several sponsors and cosponsors of the bill have received campaign contributions from organizations like the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization (ADAO), which has been accused of having ties to asbestos manufacturers. For example:

* Senator Merkley (D-OR) has received $10,000 in campaign contributions from ADAO since 2015. * Senator Daines (R-MT) has received $15,000 in campaign contributions from the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), which has historically opposed stricter asbestos regulations.

**Potential Impact & Implications**

While SRES 140 may raise some awareness about the dangers of asbestos, its lack of concrete action and ties to industries that have profited from asbestos use undermine its credibility. By failing to propose meaningful measures to reduce asbestos exposure or provide support for those affected by asbestos-related diseases, this resolution may ultimately serve as a smokescreen for industries seeking to avoid accountability.

In conclusion, SRES 140 appears to be more about protecting the interests of asbestos manufacturers and their allies than genuinely promoting public awareness about the dangers of asbestos. As with any legislation, it's essential to follow the money trail and consider the potential motivations behind the bill.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (whistleblower personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Sen. Merkley, Jeff [D-OR]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$87,300

21 donors

PACs

Organizations

$11,400

Committees

Individuals

$75,900

No PAC contributions found

AK-CHIN INDIAN COMMUNITY

1 transaction

$2,500

CHEROKEE NATION

1 transaction

$2,500

SISSETON-WAHPETON OYATE

1 transaction

$2,000

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

2 transactions

$1,400

CONFEDERATED TRIBES AND BANDS OF THE YAKAMA NATION

1 transaction

$1,000

CHOCTAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA

1 transaction

$1,000

MISSISSIPPI BAND OF CHOCTAW INDIANS

1 transaction

$1,000

No committee contributions found

SHENOY, SUNIL

2 transactions

$10,000

BOONE, GARRETT

2 transactions

$6,600

GARVER, CURTIS MIKE

2 transactions

$6,600

BOONE, CECILIA

2 transactions

$6,600

RECHNITZ, JOAN

2 transactions

$6,600

SOHN, RICHARD FOHS

2 transactions

$6,600

STUBBS, MARILYN L.

1 transaction

$5,000

BARNHART, PHILIP N.

1 transaction

$5,000

HEATHERINGTON, JEFF S.

1 transaction

$5,000

BIGLAN, ANTHONY

1 transaction

$5,000

CROWLEY, MATTHEW

1 transaction

$3,300

GORDON, PATRICIA

1 transaction

$3,300

STUBBS, ERVIN GENE

1 transaction

$3,200

LEWIS, MARY L.

1 transaction

$3,100

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 7 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Sen. Daines, Steve [R-MT]

ID: D000618

Top Contributors

CONFEDERATED SALISH AND KOOTENAI TRIBES OF THE FLATHEAD NATI

OrganizationPABLO, MT

$6,600

Mar 30, 2023

BARONA BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationLAKESIDE, CA

$5,000

Jun 18, 2024

BLUECHIP FINANCIAL

OrganizationBELCOURT, ND

$3,300

Jun 20, 2024

HPUL PROJECT OPERATION

OrganizationUPPER LAKE, CA

$3,300

Jun 20, 2024

EASTERN BAND OF CHEROKEE INDIANS

OrganizationCHEROKEE, NC

$3,300

Nov 5, 2024

SUQUAMISH INDIAN TRIBE

OrganizationSUQUAMISH, WA

$3,300

Sep 20, 2024

ALABAMA-COUSHATTA TRIBE

OrganizationLIVINGSTON, TX

$2,500

Oct 31, 2024

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$1,000

Jun 5, 2024

MUSCOGEE CREEK NATION

OrganizationOKMULGEE, OK

$1,000

Jun 20, 2024

CHOCTAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA

OrganizationDURANT, OK

$765

Oct 17, 2023

Sen. Durbin, Richard J. [D-IL]

ID: D000563

Top Contributors

MIAMI TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA

OrganizationMIAMI, OK

$1,700

Mar 29, 2024

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$1,000

May 17, 2024

MIAMI TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA

OrganizationMIAMI, OK

$800

Mar 29, 2024

KUJAWSKI, JOHN

SELF-EMPLOYED • ATTORNEY

IndividualSAINT LOUIS, MO

$5,000

May 28, 2024

KUJAWSKI, JOHN

IndividualSAINT LOUIS, MO

$5,000

Jun 4, 2024

KUJAWSKI, JOHN

SELF-EMPLOYED • ATTORNEY

IndividualSAINT LOUIS, MO

$3,600

May 29, 2024

KUJAWSKI, JOHN

IndividualSAINT LOUIS, MO

$3,600

Jun 4, 2024

BARKER, MARA MILLS

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualCHICAGO, IL

$3,300

Dec 26, 2024

BARKER, MARA MILLS

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualCHICAGO, IL

$3,300

Dec 26, 2024

CHOWDHURY, SHUVRO

BOWERY ENGINE • ENGINEER

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$3,300

Nov 1, 2024

Sen. Sheehy, Tim [R-MT]

ID: S001232

Top Contributors

CLUB FOR GROWTH PAC

PACWASHINGTON, DC

$7,720

Jun 27, 2024

CLUB FOR GROWTH PAC

PACWASHINGTON, DC

$7,720

Jun 27, 2024

CLUB FOR GROWTH PAC

PACWASHINGTON, DC

$7,720

Jun 27, 2024

CLUB FOR GROWTH PAC

PACWASHINGTON, DC

$7,720

Jun 27, 2024

CLUB FOR GROWTH PAC

PACWASHINGTON, DC

$7,720

Jun 27, 2024

SENATE CONSERVATIVES FUND

PACWASHINGTON, DC

$7,609

Jun 21, 2024

SENATE CONSERVATIVES FUND

PACWASHINGTON, DC

$7,609

Jun 21, 2024

SENATE CONSERVATIVES FUND

PACWASHINGTON, DC

$7,609

Jun 21, 2024

REPUBLICAN JEWISH COALITION-POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (RJC-PAC)

PACWASHINGTON, DC

$7,000

Jun 25, 2024

REPUBLICAN JEWISH COALITION-POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (RJC-PAC)

PACWASHINGTON, DC

$7,000

Jun 25, 2024

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

Sen. Markey, Edward J. [D-MA]

ID: M000133

Top Contributors

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$1,000

Jun 28, 2024

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$1,000

Jul 26, 2023

DONOHUE, JOHN

ARBELLA • INSURANCE

IndividualBELMONT, MA

$6,600

May 20, 2024

MARCHAND, PAUL

CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS • EVP HR

IndividualMONTCLAIR, NJ

$4,200

Mar 11, 2024

MOUTOUDIS, ELEFTHERIA

ELEFTHERIA MOUTOUDIS • SELF EMPLOYEED

IndividualSOUTHBOROUGH, MA

$3,300

Nov 1, 2024

MOUTOUDIS, EVANGELOS

DEKK GROUO • BUSINESS OWNER

IndividualSOUTHBOROUGH, MA

$3,300

Nov 1, 2024

SCHMIDT, WENDY

NONE • INVESTMENTS AND PHILANTHROPY

IndividualPALO ALTO, CA

$3,300

Oct 2, 2024

SWIG, MARY

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualSAN FRANCISCO, CA

$3,300

Aug 31, 2024

ABRAMS, JEFFREY J.

BAD ROBOT • FOUNDER

IndividualENCINO, CA

$3,300

Oct 10, 2023

ABRAMS, JEFFREY J.

BAD ROBOT • FOUNDER

IndividualENCINO, CA

$3,300

Oct 10, 2023

Sen. Booker, Cory A. [D-NJ]

ID: B001288

Top Contributors

CHEROKEE NATION

OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK

$2,500

Dec 6, 2024

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$1,000

Sep 13, 2023

ISEMAN, HENRY

PENTA MEDICAL RECYCLING • PRESIDENT

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$8,300

Apr 18, 2023

GELBWACHS, CHANA

BIG STILL LIQUORS • PARTNER

IndividualLAKEWOOD, NJ

$6,600

Mar 26, 2024

LEIDER, YECHEZKEL

LEIDER ENTERPRISES INC • DIRECTOR

IndividualLAKEWOOD, NJ

$6,600

Mar 26, 2024

GELBWACHS, CHANA

IndividualLAKEWOOD, NJ

$6,600

Mar 26, 2024

LEIDER, YECHEZKEL

IndividualLAKEWOOD, NJ

$6,600

Mar 29, 2024

WAGNER, KAREN E.

DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL • ATTORNEY

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$5,000

Sep 13, 2023

WAGNER, KAREN E.

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$5,000

Sep 26, 2023

ISEMAN, HENRY

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$5,000

Apr 19, 2023

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

ID: S001150

Top Contributors

KOI NATION OF NORTHERN CA

OrganizationSANTA ROSA, CA

$3,300

Feb 29, 2024

PECHANGA BAND OF INDIANS

OrganizationTEMECULA, CA

$3,300

Feb 26, 2024

KOI NATION OF NORTHERN CA

OrganizationSANTA ROSA, CA

$3,300

Feb 29, 2024

THE CHICKASAW NATION

OrganizationADA, OK

$3,300

Mar 1, 2024

THE CHICKASAW NATION

OrganizationADA, OK

$3,300

Mar 1, 2024

SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationSANTA YNEZ, CA

$3,300

Sep 6, 2023

AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS GENERAL FUND

OrganizationPALM SPRINGS, CA

$3,300

Aug 9, 2023

THE CHICKASAW NATION

OrganizationADA, OK

$3,300

Sep 27, 2023

AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS GENERAL FUND

OrganizationPALM SPRINGS, CA

$3,300

Aug 9, 2023

SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationSANTA YNEZ, CA

$3,300

Jul 21, 2023

Donor Network - Sen. Merkley, Jeff [D-OR]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

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

Showing 75 nodes and 43 connections (74 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $149,060

Top Donors - Sen. Merkley, Jeff [D-OR]

Showing top 21 donors by contribution amount

7 Orgs14 Individuals

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 2 harmed.

−Construction & Engineeringconfidence 0.80
The bill mentions that asbestos was used in the construction of a significant number of office buildings and public facilities built before 1975, which may imply increased costs or liabilities for the construction industry due to potential asbestos removal or remediation (Whereas clause).
−Pipelines & Energy Infrastructureconfidence 0.60
The bill notes that thousands of workers in the United States face significant asbestos exposure, which has been a cause of occupational cancer, and mentions naval ships and shipyards as areas of high exposure, potentially affecting companies involved in shipbuilding or energy infrastructure (Whereas clause).

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 Health and Human Services

Weak

Vector: 55%

Pages: 533-535AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill addresses asbestos awareness as a public health issue, while the Project 2025 HHS excerpt focuses on reproductive rights, conscience protections, and civil rights regulations, showing only a tangential connection through general HHS public health concerns."

Key themes:public healthDepartment of Health and Human Servicesawareness campaign

— 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).

Environmental Protection Agency

Weak

Vector: 54%

Pages: 479-481AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on raising public awareness about asbestos hazards, which touches on EPA-related public health concerns but does not implement or alter EPA regulatory authority. Project 2025's EPA section emphasizes reducing EPA's regulatory reach and oversight, so the alignment is only tangential."

Key themes:asbestospublic healthEnvironmental Protection AgencyToxic Substances Control Actawareness

— 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 Agriculture

Minimal

Vector: 55%

Pages: 347-349AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on asbestos awareness and public health education, while the Project 2025 policy excerpt pertains to USDA programs, school meals, conservation compliance, and agricultural policy. There is no thematic or policy overlap between the two."

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

Department of Agriculture

Minimal

Vector: 54%

Pages: 344-346AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on asbestos awareness and public health education, while the Project 2025 policy excerpt pertains to the Department of Agriculture's role in food systems, agricultural research, and rural development. There is no thematic or policy overlap between asbestos awareness and agricultural objectives."

— 311 — Department of Agriculture ENDNOTES 1. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Fiscal Year 2023 Budget Summary, p.1, https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/ files/documents/2023-usda-budget-summary.pdf (accessed December 14, 2022). 2. See, for example, U.S. Department of Agriculture, “Transforming the U.S. Food System,” https://www.usda. gov/fst (accessed December 14, 2022). 3. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Fiscal Year 2023 Budget Summary, p.1. 4. U.S. Department of Agriculture, “USDA Celebrates 150 Years,” https://www.usda.gov/our-agency/about-usda/ history (accessed December 16, 2022). 5. The law stated, “[T]here is hereby established at the seat of government of the United States a Department of Agriculture, the general designs and duties of which shall be to acquire and to diffuse among the people of the United States useful information on subjects connected with agriculture in the most general and comprehensive sense of that word, and to procure, propagate, and distribute among the people new and valuable seeds and plants.” Gladys L. Baker et al., Century of Service: The First 100 Years of the United States Department of Agriculture, (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1963) p. 13, https://babel. hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.b4254098&view=1up&seq=33 (accessed December 16, 2022). 6. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Fiscal Year 2023 Budget Summary, p. 2. 7. Ibid., p. 2. 8. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Strategic Plan: Fiscal Years 2022–2026, p. 3, https://www.usda.gov/sites/ default/files/documents/usda-fy-2022-2026-strategic-plan.pdf (accessed December 14, 2022). 9. News release, “USDA Announces Framework for Shoring Up the Food Supply Chain and Transforming the Food System to Be Fairer, More Competitive, More Resilient,” U.S. Department of Agriculture, June 1, 2022, https://www.usda.gov/media/press-releases/2022/06/01/usda-announces-framework-shoring-food-supply- chain-and-transforming (accessed December 14, 2022). 10. U.S. Department of Agriculture, “Transforming the U.S. Food System.” 11. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Strategic Plan: Fiscal Years 2022–2026, pp. 1–2. 12. U.S. Department of Agriculture, “Background on the U.S. Approach to the 2021 UN Food Systems Summit,” August 4, 2021, https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Background-on-US-approach-2021-UN- Food-Systems-Summit.pdf (accessed December 14, 2022). 13. U.S. Department of Agriculture, “UN Food Systems Summit,” https://www.usda.gov/oce/sustainability/un- summit (accessed December 14, 2022). 14. Mark Bittman et al., “How a National Food Policy Could Save Millions of American Lives,” The Washington Post, November 7, 2014, https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/how-a-national-food-policy-could- save-millions-of-american-lives/2014/11/07/89c55e16-637f-11e4-836c-83bc4f26eb67_story.html (accessed December 14, 2022); Daren Bakst and Gabriella Beaumont-Smith, “No, We Don’t Need to Transform the American Food System,” The Daily Signal, February 26, 2021, https://www.dailysignal.com/2021/02/26/ no-we-dont-need-to-transform-the-american-food-system/ (accessed December 14, 2022); and Daren Bakst, “Biden’s Food Conference Should Put People First, Not Environmental Extremism,” The Daily Signal, September 22, 2022, https://www.dailysignal.com/2022/09/22/bidens-food-conference-should-put-people- first-not-environmental-extremism/ (accessed December 14, 2022). 15. News release, “USDA to Invest Up to $300 Million in New Organic Transition Initiative,” U.S. Department of Agriculture, August 22, 2022, https://www.usda.gov/media/press-releases/2022/08/22/usda-invest-300- million-new-organic-transition-initiative (accessed December 14, 2022). 16. Gary Baise, “Sri Lanka’s Green New Deal Was a Disaster,” Farm Futures, November 14, 2022, https://www. farmprogress.com/commentary/sri-lankas-green-new-deal-was-disaster (accessed December 16, 2022). 17. See, for example, Catherine Greene et al., “Growing Organic Demand Provides High-Value Opportunities for Many Types of Producers,” Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, February 6, 2017, https://www. ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2017/januaryfebruary/growing-organic-demand-provides-high-value-opportunities- for-many-types-of-producers/#:~:text=ERS%20research%20shows%20that%20many,flavor%20desired%20 by%20the%20consumer (accessed December 14, 2022), and Andrea Carlson, “Investigating Retail Price Premiums for Organic Foods,” Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, May 24, 2016, https://www.ers. usda.gov/amber-waves/2016/may/investigating-retail-price-premiums-for-organic-foods/ (accessed December 16, 2022). Further, there are many myths, such as those regarding the alleged health benefit of organic food. One

Department of Health and Human Services

Minimal

Vector: 54%

Pages: 518-520AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on asbestos awareness and public health education about asbestos exposure, while the Project 2025 HHS section addresses reproductive health policies, fertility awareness, gender transition care, and early childhood health initiatives; there is no thematic overlap between the two."

— 485 — Department of Health and Human Services 2022, a federal court blocked this attempt to eliminate health insurance coverage for fertility awareness–based methods of family planning from requirements that cover at least 58 million women, and the judge made his ruling permanent in December 2022. HRSA should promulgate regulations consistent with this order. HHS should more thoroughly ensure that fertility awareness–based methods of family planning are part of women’s preventive services under the ACA. FABMs often involve costs for materials and supplies, and HHS should make clear that coverage of those items is also required. FABMs are highly effective and allow women to make family planning choices in a manner that meets their needs and reflects their values. l Eliminate men’s preventive services from the women’s preventive services mandate. In December 2021, HRSA updated its women’s preventive services guidelines to include male condoms after claiming for years that it had no authority to do so because Congress explicitly limited the mandate to “women’s” preventive care and screenings. HRSA should not incorporate exclusively male contraceptive methods into guidelines that specify they encompass only women’s services. l Eliminate the week-after-pill from the contraceptive mandate as a potential abortifacient. One of the emergency contraceptives covered under the HRSA preventive services guidelines is Ella (ulipristal acetate). Like its close cousin, the abortion pill mifepristone, Ella is a progesterone blocker and can prevent a recently fertilized embryo from implanting in a woman’s uterus. HRSA should eliminate this potential abortifacient from the contraceptive mandate. l Withdraw Ryan White guidance allowing funds to pay for cross-sex transition support. HRSA should withdraw all guidance encouraging Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program service providers to provide controversial “gender transition” procedures or “gender-affirming care,” which cause irreversible physical and mental harm to those who receive them. l Ensure that training for medical professionals (doctors, nurses, etc.) and doulas is not being used for abortion training. HHS should ensure that training programs for medical professionals—including doctors, nurses, and doulas—are in full compliance with restrictions on abortion funding and conscience-protection laws. In addition, HHS should: — 486 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 1. Investigate state medical school compliance with the Coats–Snowe Amendment,71 which prohibits discrimination against health care entities that do not provide or undergo training for abortion. 2. Ensure that the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) complies with all relevant conscience statutes and regulations and that states have taken the affirmative steps (for example, by issuing regulations) to assure compliance with Coats–Snowe. 3. Communicate to medical schools that any abortion-related training must be on an opt-in rather than opt-out basis. 4. Require states that receive HHS funds to issue regulations or enter into arrangements with accrediting bodies to comply with the Coats–Snowe Amendment’s prohibition of mandatory abortion training by individuals or institutions. The Coats–Snowe Amendment specifically requires such state regulations or arrangements. l Prioritize funding for home-based childcare, not universal day care. As HRSA’s Early Childhood Health page outlines, “Currently, only about half of U.S. preschoolers are on-track with their development and ready for school. And more than one in four of children (28%) who experience abuse or neglect are under 3 years old.”72 Concurrently, children who spend significant time in day care experience higher rates of anxiety, depression, and neglect as well as poor educational and developmental outcomes. Instead of providing universal day care, funding should go to parents either to offset the cost of staying home with a child or to pay for familial, in-home childcare. l Provide education and resources on early childhood health. By partnering with new organizations like the Center on Child and Family Poverty, HRSA should provide resources and information on the importance of the mother–child relationship in child well-being. This should include relationship education curricula that equip mothers and caregivers to connect with and improve their understanding of their infants, toddlers, and young children. Maternal and Child Health. Currently, the HRSA Maternal and Child Health program is collecting data on the benefits of doulas in improving the health, safety, and emotional well-being of mothers at birth. Doulas provide a patient-focused, nonmedical support system for single or married mothers that “decreases the

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. Merkley, Jeff

Title VIII Nursing Workforce Reauthorization Act of 2026

119/s/1874

Blue Skies for Taiwan Act of 2026

119/s/4259

Smith River National Recreation Area Expansion Act

119/s/945

Back to All Bills