The bill
A resolution to authorize representation by the Senate Legal Counsel in the case of Desmond Bellard v. Ronald Wyden, U.S. Senator.
SRES. 170, 119th Congress.
A resolution to authorize representation by the Senate Legal Counsel in the case of Desmond Bellard v. Ronald Wyden, U.S. Senator.
Download PDFBill ID: 119/sres/170
Last Updated: April 10, 2025
Sponsored by
Sen. Thune, John [R-SD]
ID: T000250
Follow the money
The sponsor
Sen. Thune, John [R-SD]
Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.
The money
$102,900 raised
20 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.
The alignment
70% match to Project 2025
This bill's text tracks the "White House Office" section, p. 60-62 of the Mandate for Leadership.
Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law
Track this bill's progress through the legislative process
Latest Action
Invalid Date
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
Another thrilling episode of "Congressional Theater" brought to you by the esteemed members of the Senate. SRES 170, a resolution that's about as exciting as a root canal without anesthesia.
**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The main purpose of this bill is to authorize the Senate Legal Counsel to represent Senator Ronald Wyden in a civil case, Desmond Bellard v. Ronald Wyden. Wow, what a bold move! I'm sure it has nothing to do with protecting the senator's ego or reputation.
**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The resolution cites sections 703(a) and 704(a)(1) of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, which allows the Senate to direct its counsel to defend members in civil actions related to their official responsibilities. How convenient! It's like they're saying, "Hey, we've got a get-out-of-jail-free card for our buddy Ron."
**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The affected parties include Senator Wyden (the defendant), Desmond Bellard (the plaintiff), and the Senate Legal Counsel (who gets to bill the taxpayers for their services). Oh, and let's not forget the voters who will foot the bill for this farce.
**Potential Impact & Implications:** This resolution is a classic case of " politician-itis," where our esteemed leaders use taxpayer money to protect themselves from accountability. It's like they're saying, "We're above the law, but we'll still take your money to defend ourselves." The potential impact? More of the same old corruption and cronyism that plagues our government.
Diagnosis: This bill is a symptom of a deeper disease – the chronic condition of self-preservation and entitlement that afflicts many politicians. It's a cynical attempt to shield Senator Wyden from accountability, all while pretending to uphold the law. I give it two thumbs down, and a strong recommendation for a healthy dose of skepticism.
Treatment: None needed, as this bill is just a minor symptom of a much larger problem – the systemic rot that infects our government. But hey, at least we can enjoy the theater while it lasts!
Related Topics
Congressional Rules & Procedures
Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)
💰 Campaign Finance Network
Sen. Thune, John [R-SD]
Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle
Total Contributions
$102,900
15 donors
PACs
$0
Organizations
$0
Committees
$0
Individuals
$102,900
No PAC contributions found
No organization contributions found
No committee contributions found
1
BELL, RICHARD R
$16,800
2
NESS, LARRY F
$11,700
3
HARMS, DUANE D
$9,700
4
EVANS, MICHAEL
$8,400
5
POWELL, JESSE
$6,600
6
DUHAMEL, KATHARINE B
$6,600
7
DUHAMEL, WILLIAM F JR.
$6,600
8
BARATTA, JOSEPH
$6,600
9
MCINERNEY, PAULA G
$5,000
10
MILKEN, LOWELL J
$5,000
11
WHITE, ALAN B
$5,000
12
HARMS, JEFFREY D
$5,000
13
MARQUIS, BENJAMIN L
$3,300
14
MARQUIS, DARRELL L
$3,300
15
MARQUIS, DUSTIN L
$3,300
Donor Network - Sen. Thune, John [R-SD]
PACs
Organizations
Individuals
Politicians
Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.
Loading...
Showing 30 nodes and 20 connections (36 secondary connections hidden)
Total contributions: $102,900
Top Donors - Sen. Thune, John [R-SD]
Showing top 15 donors by contribution amount
15 Individuals
Project 2025 Policy Matches
This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.AI-enhanced analysis provides detailed alignment ratings.
White House Office
Moderate
Vector: 57%Pages: 60-62AI Enhanced
AI Analysis:
"Both the bill and the Project 2025 White House Office policy concern government legal counsel providing representation and advice to officials to enable them to perform their official duties and protect institutional powers, though one applies to the Senate and the other to the White House."
Key themes:legal counselofficial duties representationprotection from litigationinstitutional legal supportagenda advancement
— 27 — White House Office the President and his reports on how (within the bounds of the law) to pursue and realize the President’s agenda. While the White House Counsel does not serve as the President’s personal attor- ney in nonofficial matters, it is almost impossible to delineate exactly where an issue is strictly personal and has no bearing on the President’s official function. The White House Counsel needs to be deeply committed both to the President’s agenda and to affording the President proactive counsel and zealous representation. That individual directly advises the President as he performs the duties of the office, and this requires a relationship that is built on trust, confidentiality, and candor. The Office of White House Counsel is also responsible for ensuring that each component of the White House adheres to all applicable legal and ethical guide- lines, which often requires ongoing training and monitoring to ensure compliance. This means ensuring that White House staff regularly consult with office attor- neys on required financial disclosures, received gifts, potential conflicts of interest, and other ethical concerns. The Office of White House Counsel is the first line of defense for the EOP. Its staff must take seriously the duty to protect the powers and privileges of the President from encroachments by Congress, the judiciary, and the administrative components of departments and agencies. In addition to the White House Counsel, the office includes deputies, assistants, associates, and legal support staff. The assistant and associate attorneys are often specialists in particular areas of the law and offer guidance to the EOP on issues related to national security, criminal law, environmental law, and a host of admin- istrative and regulatory matters. Attorneys working in the Office of White House Counsel serve as legal advisers to the White House policy operation by reviewing executive orders, agency regulations, and other policy-related functions. Here again, subordinates should be deeply committed to the President’s agenda and see their role as helping to accomplish the agenda through problem solving and advocacy. They should not erect roadblocks out of an abundance of caution; rather, they should offer practical legal advice on how to promote the President’s agenda within the bounds of the law. The White House Counsel’s office cannot serve as a finishing school to credential the next set of white-shoe law firm attorneys or federal judges in waiting who cabin their opinions for fear their elite credentials could be tarnished through a policy disagreement. Rather, it should function more as an activist yet ethical plaintiffs’ firm that advocates for its client—the Administration’s agenda—within the limits imposed by the Constitution and the duties of the legal profession. The Office of White House Counsel also serves as the primary gateway for communication between the White House and the Department of Justice (DOJ). Traditionally, both the White House Counsel and the Attorney General have issued a memo requiring all contact between the two institutions to occur only between the Office of White House Counsel and the Attorney General or Deputy Attorney — 28 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise General. The next Administration should reexamine this policy and determine whether it might be more efficient or more appropriate for communication to occur through additional channels. The White House Counsel also works closely with the DOJ Office of Legal Counsel to seek opinions on, for example, matters of policy development and the constitutionality of presidential power and privileges and with OLA and the DOJ Office of Legal Policy on presidential judicial nominees. When a new President takes office, he will need to decide expeditiously how to handle any major ongoing litigation or other pending legal matters that might pres- ent a challenge to his agenda. To offer guidance, the White House Counsel must get up to speed as quickly as possible on all significant ongoing legal challenges across the executive branch that might affect the new Administration’s policy agenda and must be prepared at the outset of the Administration to present recommenda- tions to the President, including recommendations for reconsidering or reversing positions of the previous Administration in any significant litigation. This review will usually require consulting with the new political leadership at the Justice Department, including during the transition period. No day is predictable at the White House. Therefore, to handle the pace and volatility of affairs, the Office of White House Counsel must offer measured legal guidance in a timely manner. This often means forgoing law review–style memos about esoteric legal concepts and instead quickly providing high-level yet incisive guidance. Due to evolving world events, domestic affairs, and political pressures, the office often faces legal questions for which there may not be a wealth of precedent. Attorneys in the Office of White House Counsel must therefore work collaboratively within the White House and the Department of Justice, relying on each other as a team, to ensure that proper legal guidance is delivered to the President. The President should choose a White House Counsel who is well-versed in the Constitution, administrative and regulatory law, and the inner workings of Congress and the political process. Instead of choosing a specialist, the President should hire a counsel with extensive experience with a wide range of complex legal subjects. Moreover, while a candidate with elite credentials might seem ideal, the best one will be above all loyal to the President and the Constitution. STAFF SECRETARY The Office of the Staff Secretary is rarely visible to the outside world, but it performs work of tremendous importance. The office is similar to a military com- mander’s adjutant as it is responsible for fielding and managing a vast amount of information at the top of its organization. This includes information on its way into the Oval Office as well as information flowing out from the Oval Office. Because of its gatekeeping function, the position of Staff Secretary is one of extreme trust, and the individual who possesses it should be vetted to work as an “honest broker” in the President’s service.
Executive Office of the President of the United States
Minimal
Vector: 58%Pages: 96-98AI Enhanced
AI Analysis:
"SRES 170 is a procedural resolution authorizing Senate Legal Counsel to represent Senator Wyden in a civil case, focusing on senatorial immunity and legal representation. The Project 2025 excerpt discusses the Vice President's role in the Executive Office, interagency coordination, and advancing the President's legislative agenda. There is no thematic or policy overlap between the two."
— 64 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Senate, often serves as a presidential emissary to the Senate and thus can be espe- cially helpful in securing passage of the President’s legislative agenda. To the extent that he or she desires, a Vice President can have a direct role in shaping Administration policy. A Vice President who regularly attends meetings and disperses staff across the interagency and policy councils is a Vice President whose voice will be heard. AUTHOR’S NOTE: Special thanks to those who contributed to this chapter: Stephen Billy, Scott Pace, Casey Mulligan, Edie Heipel, Mike Duffey, Vance Ginn, Iain Murray, Laura Cunliffe, Mario Loyola, Anthony Campau, Paige Agostin, Molly Sikes, Paul Ray, Kenneth A. Klukowski, Michael Anton, Robert Greenway, Valerie Huber, James Rockas, Paul Winfree, Aaron Hedlund, Brian McCormack, David Legates, Art Kleinschmidt, Paul Larkin, Kayla Tonnessen, Jeffrey B. Clark, Jonathan Wolfson, and Bob Burkett. — 65 — Executive Office of the President of the United States ENDNOTES 1. U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 1, https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleii#section1 (accessed January 30, 2023). 2. James Madison, The Federalist Papers No. 47, January 30, 1788, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/ Madison/01-10-02-0266 (accessed January 30, 2023). 3. 31 U.S.C. §§ 1341(a)(1)(A) and 1341(a)(1)(B), https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/1341 (accessed January 30, 2023); § 1342, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/1342 (accessed January 30, 2023); and § 1517(a), https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/1517(a) (accessed January 30, 2023). 4. President William J. Clinton, Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” September 30, 1993, in Federal Register, Vol. 58, No. 190 (October 4, 1993), pp. 51735–51744, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/ FR-1993-10-04/pdf/FR-1993-10-04.pdf (accessed March 9, 2023). 5. Brent J. McIntosh, General Counsel, Department of the Treasury, and Neomi Rao, Administrator, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Memorandum of Agreement, “The Department of the Treasury and the Office of Management and Budget Review of Tax Regulations Under Executive Order 12866,” April 11, 2018, https://home.treasury.gov/sites/default/files/2018-04/04-11%20Signed%20Treasury%20OIRA%20MOA.pdf (accessed January 31, 2023). 6. See Steven A. Engel, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, “Extending Regulatory Review Under Executive Order 12866 to Independent Regulatory Agencies,” 43 Op. O.L.C. __ (Oct. 8, 2019), https:// www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opinions/attachments/2020/12/30/2019-10-08-extend-reg-review.pdf (accessed January 31, 2023). 7. Office of Management and Budget, Circular A-4, “Regulatory Analysis,” September 17, 2003, https:// www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/legacy_drupal_files/omb/circulars/A4/a-4.pdf (accessed January 31, 2023). 8. President Donald J. Trump, Executive Order 13891, “Promoting the Rule of Law Through Improved Agency Guidance Documents,” October 9, 2019, in Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 199 (October 15, 2019), pp. 55235– 55238, https://home.treasury.gov/sites/default/files/2018-04/04-11%20Signed%20Treasury%20OIRA%20MOA. pdf (accessed January 31, 2023). 9. President Donald J. Trump, Executive Order 13771, “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs,” January 30, 2017, in Federal Register, Vol. 82, No. 22 (February 3, 20170, pp. 9339–9341, https://www.govinfo. gov/content/pkg/FR-2017-02-03/pdf/2017-02451.pdf (accessed January 31, 2023). 10. President Donald J. Trump, Executive Order 13777, “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda,” February 24, 2017, in Federal Register, Vol. 82, No. 39 (March 1, 2017), pp. 12285–12287, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/ pkg/FR-2017-03-01/pdf/2017-04107.pdf (accessed January 31, 2023). 11. See note 8, supra. 12. President Donald J. Trump, Executive Order 13892, “Promoting the Rule of Law Through Transparency and Fairness in Civil Administrative Enforcement and Adjudication,” in Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 199 (October 15, 2019), pp. 55239–55243, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-10-15/pdf/2019-22624.pdf (accessed January 31, 2023). 13. President Donald J. Trump, Executive Order 13893, “Increasing Government Accountability for Administrative Actions by Reinvigorating Administrative PAYGO,” October 10, 2019, in Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 200 (October 16, 2019), pp. 55487–55488, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-10-16/pdf/2019-22749. pdf (accessed January 31, 2023). 14. President Donald J. Trump, Executive Order 13924, “Regulatory Relief to Support Economic Recovery,” May 19, 2020, in Federal Register, Vol. 85, No. 100 (May 22, 2020), pp. 31353–31356, esp. 31355, https://www.govinfo. gov/content/pkg/FR-2020-05-22/pdf/2020-11301.pdf (accessed January 31, 2023). 15. President Donald J. Trump, Executive Order 13979, “Ensuring Democratic Accountability in Agency Rulemaking,” January 18, 2021, in Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 13 (January 22, 2021), pp. 6813–6815, https:// www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2021-01-22/pdf/2021-01644.pdf (accessed January 31, 2023). 16. President Donald J. Trump, Executive Order 13980, “Protecting Americans from Overcriminalization Through Regulatory Reform,” January 18, 2021, in Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 13 (January 22, 2021), pp. 6817–6820, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2021-01-22/pdf/2021-01645.pdf (accessed January 31, 2023).
Department of Health and Human Services
Minimal
Vector: 57%Pages: 524-526AI Enhanced
AI Analysis:
"SRES 170 concerns Senate Legal Counsel representation for a senator in a civil case, which is unrelated to the Department of Health and Human Services reforms, Strategic National Stockpile, Office of General Counsel, Office for Civil Rights, or other health‑policy objectives outlined in the Project 2025 excerpt."
— 492 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Strategic National Stockpile. The President should invoke the Defense Pro- duction Act,79 which is a form of temporary takeover of private enterprises, only in the gravest circumstances. The Strategic National Stockpile (SNS) should be reformed to consider the potential supply chain disruptions of pandemics or global conflicts. Also, during the COVID pandemic, many states received ventilators from the SNS and hoarded them in places where a rush of COVID patients needing ven- tilators never materialized. The SNS should clarify its mission as supplier of last resort to the federal government, state governments, or first responders and key medical staff and should not portray itself as serving the public as a whole. OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) The Office of General Counsel is essential to ensuring that HHS is operating within the bounds of its numerous governing statutes. However, legal caution can outweigh practical necessity and often slows processes and decisions when time is of the essence. Such problems were evident both before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Internal processes should be reformed to streamline necessary legal determinations during crises, and general processes should be reviewed for effi- ciency. OGC should also: l Rescind its PREP Act liability memo. OGC issued a PREP Act liability memo that suspended application of civil rights and other laws in the context of the administration of covered countermeasures during the pandemic. It should be rescinded as contrary to law. l Rescind efforts to curtail OCR authority over conscience and religious freedom. All OGC memos and Federal Register notices of organization or delegations of authority moving any OCR conscience and religious freedom enforcement to OGC, including RFRA, should be rescinded, and independent authority over these matters should be restored to OCR. l Encourage DOJ to repeal OLC memos allowing abortion funding despite Hyde and memos allowing federal enclave immunity to perform abortions despite the Assimilative Crimes Act.80 l Rescind legal analysis that authorized HHS to impose a moratorium on rental evictions during COVID. l Rescind the OGC legal analysis saying that the injunction in Bowen v. American Hospital Association81 prevents any proposed HHS regulations or enforcement actions concerning the denial of care — 493 — Department of Health and Human Services to newborn infants with disabilities by covered health care entities without or against parental consent. l Rescind the legal analysis supporting the Biden Administration’s decision to dismiss the University of Vermont Medical Center case dealing with the forced participation of a nurse in abortion in violation of law. l Rescind the legal analysis restoring $200 million in Medicaid funds to California after having been found to be in violation of the Weldon Amendment by OCR. OFFICE OF GLOBAL AFFAIRS (OGA) The Director of the Office of Global Affairs should have the title of Assistant Secretary so that he or she can adequately represent HHS and the Secretary and serve as the lead on global health diplomacy for the government. The designation “Director” is not understood to indicate the leadership role that this position holds in the international arena. In addition: l All divisions that work on international health efforts should be responsive to requests and direction from the Assistant Secretary with coordination for all health diplomacy emanating from OGA. l OGA should have a clear and consistent voice for the Administration’s pro-life and pro-family priorities in all international engagements. l OGA should hold oversight authority for implementation of the Mexico City policy throughout all divisions. l Every effort should be made to locate all OGA staff in the same building for better oversight and communication. l Health attachés in various global locations should be trained in the Administration’s policies with clear expectations communicated and with accountability, including replacement, when their conduct and advocacy are contrary to Administration policies and programmatic priorities. OFFICE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS (OCR) Conscience Enforcement. Existing statutes that protect rights of conscience (such as the Church, Coats–Snowe, and Weldon amendments) do not explicitly
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.