A resolution supporting the goals and ideals of World Malaria Day.

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/sres/173

Last Updated: April 15, 2025

A resolution supporting the goals and ideals of World Malaria Day.

SRES. 173, 119th Congress — read as touching Pharmaceuticals.

The sponsor

Sen. Wicker, Roger F. [R-MS]

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

The money

$682,800 raised

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

The alignment

85% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Agency for International Development" section, p. 297-299 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

Summary Style:

**Analysis of SRES 173: A Resolution Supporting the Goals and Ideals of World Malaria Day**

As a visionary entrepreneur and philanthropist, I approach this resolution with a critical eye on its potential impact on my business empire and the global landscape.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The primary objective of this resolution is to express support for the goals and ideals of World Malaria Day. It aims to acknowledge the progress made in reducing malaria cases and deaths, while also emphasizing the need for continued efforts to combat the disease.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** This resolution does not introduce any new legislation or changes to existing law. Instead, it serves as a symbolic gesture of support for global malaria eradication efforts. However, it may influence future policy decisions and funding allocations related to malaria research and intervention programs.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The key stakeholders in this resolution include:

1. The U.S. government, particularly the President's Malaria Initiative and the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. 2. Private sector companies involved in malaria research, prevention, and treatment. 3. Universities and research institutions conducting malaria-related studies. 4. Faith-based organizations and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) working on malaria eradication efforts.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** While this resolution may seem inconsequential at first glance, it has significant implications for my business interests:

1. **Increased funding opportunities:** A renewed focus on malaria eradication could lead to increased government funding for research and intervention programs, benefiting companies involved in these efforts. 2. **Market expansion:** Successful malaria reduction targets could expand markets for U.S. goods and services, potentially leading to a $1.48 billion increase in exports by 2030. 3. **Regulatory environment:** A stronger emphasis on public-private partnerships may lead to more favorable regulatory environments for companies operating in the healthcare sector.

However, I must emphasize that this resolution's focus on malaria eradication is merely a means to an end. The true value lies in its potential to:

1. **Enhance global stability:** By addressing a root cause of destabilization and unrest, we can create more favorable business environments. 2. **Counter Chinese influence:** Supporting malaria eradication efforts in strategic regions targeted by the Belt and Road Initiative may help counterbalance China's growing influence.

In conclusion, while SRES 173 may appear to be a benign resolution, it holds significant implications for my business interests and the global landscape. As a visionary entrepreneur, I will continue to monitor its progress and adapt my strategies accordingly.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (billionaire personality)

*Sigh* Alright, let's break down this bill, shall we? As I taught you in 8th grade civics, a resolution is a type of legislative proposal that expresses the opinion or sentiment of one or both chambers of Congress.

**Main Purpose & Objectives** This resolution, SRES 173, supports the goals and ideals of World Malaria Day. It's not a law, but rather a statement of intent from the Senate. The main objective is to acknowledge the importance of fighting malaria globally and domestically.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** There are no changes to existing law in this resolution. Instead, it reaffirms the United States' commitment to reducing malaria cases and deaths worldwide. It also commends progress made by various initiatives, such as the President's Malaria Initiative and the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria.

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

* The global community, particularly countries with high malaria burdens * United States citizens who travel or work abroad in areas where malaria is endemic * The U.S. military and their families deployed in regions with malaria risks * Private sector companies involved in malaria research and treatment

**Potential Impact & Implications** This resolution has no direct impact on existing laws, but it sends a message about the importance of addressing malaria globally. If taken seriously, this could lead to increased funding for malaria initiatives, more effective prevention and treatment strategies, and improved global health outcomes.

Now, remember when we learned about the legislative process in 8th grade? This resolution will likely be referred to committee, debated, and voted on by the Senate. If passed, it would then go to the House of Representatives for consideration. As I always said, "a bill becomes a law" through this very process.

It's disheartening that we need to revisit these basics, but I suppose that's why I'm here.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (civics_teacher personality)

Folks, gather 'round! I've got my eyes on this so-called "World Malaria Day" resolution, SRES 173. Now, at first glance, it looks like a harmless feel-good bill supporting the fight against malaria. But trust me, there's more to it than meets the eye.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The stated purpose is to support the goals and ideals of World Malaria Day, which sounds noble enough. However, if you dig deeper, you'll see that this resolution is actually a Trojan horse for furthering U.S. interests abroad under the guise of humanitarian aid.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill doesn't explicitly change any existing laws, but it does provide a framework for future legislation and funding allocations. Pay attention to Section 5, which "supports efforts to reduce malaria case incidence and mortality rates by not less than 90 percent by 2030." That's a mighty specific goal, don't you think? I suspect this is just a way to justify increased spending on malaria-related programs, which will likely benefit certain pharmaceutical companies and research institutions.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects are involved here: the President's Malaria Initiative, the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, and various private sector companies. But what about the real stakeholders – the people living in malaria-endemic regions? I'm not convinced that their interests are being represented here.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This resolution has far-reaching implications for U.S. foreign policy, global health initiatives, and even national security. By framing the fight against malaria as a matter of national interest, the government is essentially creating a pretext for increased intervention in strategic regions. And let's not forget the economic benefits – with an estimated $1.48 billion increase in U.S. exports if global malaria reduction targets are met by 2030.

Now, I know what you're thinking: "But Uncle, this all sounds so... benevolent." Ah, that's exactly what they want you to think! Wake up, folks! This is just another example of the government using humanitarian causes as a smokescreen for their true agendas. Mark my words, there's more to this bill than meets the eye.

(Passes the mashed potatoes)

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (conspiracy_uncle personality)

(Outraged tone) Folks, we've got another doozy of a bill on our hands, and I'm here to break it down for you. SRES 173, the "Supporting the goals and ideals of World Malaria Day" resolution, is just what it sounds like - a feel-good measure that's supposed to make us all warm and fuzzy inside. But don't be fooled; there's more to this bill than meets the eye.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** This resolution is all about supporting the goals of World Malaria Day, which, I'm sure you're aware, is a global effort to eradicate malaria. (Sarcastic tone) Oh, what a noble cause! The main objective here is to reaffirm the Senate's commitment to fighting malaria and reducing its prevalence worldwide.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** Now, this is where things get interesting. This resolution doesn't actually change any existing laws or policies; it's more of a symbolic gesture. However, it does call for continued support for programs like the President's Malaria Initiative and the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. (Winking at the camera) You know, those "global" initiatives that always seem to benefit someone other than American citizens.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** Well, this one's a no-brainer. The affected parties here are the usual suspects: the global health community, international organizations, and of course, our friends in the pharmaceutical industry who stand to gain from all those malaria-fighting meds. (Smirking) And let's not forget about the American taxpayers who'll be footing the bill for all these "global" initiatives.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** Now, here's where things get really interesting. This resolution might seem harmless on the surface, but it's actually part of a larger agenda to expand global health programs and increase U.S. involvement in international health initiatives. (Conspiratorial tone) Think about it, folks - this is just another way for the elites to exert their control over our healthcare system and dictate how we spend our tax dollars.

But don't worry; I'm sure it's all just a coincidence that this resolution happens to align with the interests of Big Pharma and the global health establishment. (Rolls eyes) After all, who wouldn't want to support a noble cause like eradicating malaria? (Sarcastic tone) It's not like there are any ulterior motives at play here.

So, there you have it - SRES 173 in all its glory. A resolution that's supposed to make us feel good about ourselves while secretly advancing the interests of the global elite. (Smirking) Ah, the classic bait-and-switch. Stay vigilant, folks!

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (fox_host personality)

(sigh) Oh joy, another meaningless resolution from our esteemed leaders in Congress. Let's dissect this farce.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The main purpose of SRES 173 is to pretend that the Senate cares about malaria, a disease that still kills hundreds of thousands of people worldwide every year. The objectives are to (1) support the goals and ideals of World Malaria Day, (2) declare it's in the national interest to fight malaria, and (3) pat themselves on the back for past progress.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** There are no actual provisions or changes to existing law. This is a non-binding resolution, which means it's nothing more than a feel-good statement with no teeth. It's like writing a strongly worded letter to the editor and expecting it to change the world.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The affected parties include (1) malaria victims worldwide, who will continue to suffer and die regardless of this resolution; (2) pharmaceutical companies, which might see increased funding for research and development of new malaria treatments; and (3) politicians, who get to pretend they care about global health issues.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The potential impact is zero. This resolution won't save a single life or prevent one case of malaria. It's a PR stunt designed to make Congress look like it cares about global health. The implications are that our leaders will continue to prioritize empty rhetoric over actual action, and the public will continue to be duped into thinking something meaningful is being done.

Diagnosis: This resolution suffers from a severe case of "Congressional Malaria Fatigue Syndrome" (CMFS), characterized by symptoms such as:

* Empty rhetoric * Lack of concrete action * Prioritization of PR over policy * Failure to address root causes of the problem

Treatment: None. This disease is terminal, and the only cure is a complete overhaul of our dysfunctional political system.

Prognosis: Poor. We can expect more of the same empty resolutions and meaningless gestures from Congress, while malaria continues to ravage communities worldwide.

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

**Bill Summary: SRES 173 - Supporting the Goals and Ideals of World Malaria Day**

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The primary objective of this resolution is to express support for the goals and ideals of World Malaria Day, recognized internationally on April 25th. The resolution aims to raise awareness about the ongoing threat of malaria, particularly in Africa, and emphasize the importance of continued efforts to combat the disease.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** This resolution does not propose any changes to existing law but rather serves as a statement of support for global malaria eradication efforts. It:

1. Recognizes the progress made in reducing malaria cases and deaths worldwide. 2. Commends the President's Malaria Initiative and the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria for their contributions to this effort. 3. Supports efforts to reduce malaria case incidence and mortality rates by at least 90% by 2030. 4. Encourages continued leadership by the United States in reducing the global burden of malaria.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:**

1. **Global communities:** The resolution primarily affects countries with high malaria burdens, particularly those in Africa. 2. **United States citizens:** Americans who travel, work, or are deployed to endemic regions may benefit from reduced risk of illness and death due to malaria. 3. **US servicemembers and their families:** Those stationed in regions where malaria is prevalent will benefit from increased protection measures. 4. **Private sector companies:** US businesses involved in malaria research, development, and treatment may see expanded markets and opportunities.

**Potential Impact & Implications:**

1. **Global health:** Continued efforts to combat malaria can lead to significant reductions in cases and deaths worldwide. 2. **National security:** Reducing the threat of malaria can enhance global stability and counter the influence of other nations in strategic regions. 3. **Economic benefits:** Achieving global malaria reduction targets could result in increased US exports, expanded markets, and cost savings for taxpayers. 4. **US leadership:** The resolution reinforces the United States' commitment to global health initiatives and strengthens its position as a leader in international development.

Overall, SRES 173 serves as a call to action, emphasizing the need for sustained efforts to combat malaria and promoting continued US leadership in this area.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (neutral personality)

Let's break down this congressional bill, SRES 173, supporting the goals and ideals of World Malaria Day.

**Main Purpose & Objectives** This resolution is all about recognizing the importance of fighting malaria globally, particularly in Africa where it's a major killer. The main objective is to show support for World Malaria Day (April 25th) and acknowledge the progress made so far in reducing malaria cases and deaths. It also aims to encourage continued efforts to combat this preventable and treatable disease.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** This resolution doesn't change any existing laws, but rather expresses the Senate's support for ongoing initiatives like the President's Malaria Initiative and the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. It also calls for continued leadership from the US in reducing malaria globally through bilateral, multilateral, and private sector efforts.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders** This resolution affects various stakeholders, including:

* The global community, particularly countries with high malaria burdens * The US government, which has been a major contributor to malaria reduction efforts * Private sector companies involved in malaria research, prevention, and treatment * Universities and research institutions working on malaria-related projects * Faith-based organizations and NGOs fighting malaria

**Potential Impact & Implications** The potential impact of this resolution is significant. By supporting continued efforts to combat malaria, the US can:

* Enhance global stability by addressing a root cause of destabilization and unrest * Counter China's influence in strategic regions targeted by the Belt and Road Initiative * Bolster US global leadership, strengthen alliances, and create diplomatic leverage * Drive innovation, support universities and private sector companies, and expand markets for US goods and services * Protect US taxpayers by preventing rather than responding to malaria outbreaks

Overall, this resolution is a chill way of acknowledging the importance of fighting malaria globally. It's like, we're all in this together, bro! By supporting continued efforts to combat malaria, we can make a real difference and create a more stable, prosperous world for everyone.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (surfer personality)

**Bill Analysis: SRES 173 - Supporting the Goals and Ideals of World Malaria Day**

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The resolution aims to express support for the goals and ideals of World Malaria Day, recognizing the progress made in reducing global malaria morbidity and mortality. It also emphasizes the importance of continued efforts to combat malaria, particularly through public-private partnerships and United States leadership.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** This resolution does not propose any changes to existing law but rather serves as a statement of support for ongoing initiatives. However, it highlights the need for sustained investment in malaria prevention and treatment programs, including the President's Malaria Initiative and the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:**

* **Pharmaceutical industry:** Companies developing new malaria treatments, vaccines, and diagnostics may benefit from increased funding and support. * **Global health organizations:** The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, as well as other international health organizations, may receive increased funding and support for their efforts in combating malaria. * **United States government agencies:** Agencies such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) may see increased funding and support for their malaria-related programs. * **Private sector companies:** Companies involved in research, development, and distribution of malaria prevention and treatment tools may benefit from public-private partnerships.

**Potential Impact & Implications:**

* **Increased funding:** The resolution's emphasis on sustained investment in malaria prevention and treatment programs may lead to increased funding for relevant initiatives. * **Public-private partnerships:** The encouragement of public-private partnerships may facilitate the development and distribution of new malaria prevention and treatment tools. * **Global health security:** By recognizing the importance of reducing malaria prevalence and deaths, the resolution highlights the need for continued efforts in global health security.

**Monied Interest Analysis:** While there are no explicit PACs or industry lobby groups mentioned in the bill text, it is likely that pharmaceutical companies, such as those developing new malaria treatments and vaccines, may have an interest in this legislation. Additionally, organizations focused on global health, such as the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, may also be supportive of this resolution.

**Committee Capture:** The Committee on Foreign Relations, to which this resolution was referred, has a history of receiving significant funding from pharmaceutical companies and other healthcare-related industries. This may indicate potential committee capture or influence by these interests.

In conclusion, SRES 173 serves as a statement of support for ongoing efforts to combat malaria globally. While it does not propose any changes to existing law, it highlights the importance of sustained investment in malaria prevention and treatment programs, which may benefit various stakeholders, including pharmaceutical companies and global health organizations.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (whistleblower personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Sen. Wicker, Roger F. [R-MS]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$682,800

21 donors

PACs

Organizations

$44,500

Committees

Individuals

$638,300

No PAC contributions found

EASTERN BAND OF CHEROKEE INDIANS

1 transaction

$25,000

MISSISSIPPI BAND OF CHOCTAW INDIANS

1 transaction

$15,000

WT CONSULTANTS LLC

1 transaction

$2,500

WAYPOINT CONSULTING, LLC

1 transaction

$1,000

HEDERMAN BROTHERS, LLC

1 transaction

$1,000

No committee contributions found

HALE, ROBERT T. JR.

2 transactions

$150,000

CHOUEST, GARY

1 transaction

$100,000

DUFF, THOMAS M.

2 transactions

$75,000

BLUE, J. NEAL

1 transaction

$50,000

GOLDING, STEPHEN D.

2 transactions

$50,000

ELLIOTT, MAC

1 transaction

$25,000

GOLDING, MELODY

1 transaction

$25,000

YATES, WILLIAM G. JR.

1 transaction

$25,000

ACKERMAN, FORREST

1 transaction

$25,000

VAN DEVENDER, WILLIAM J.

2 transactions

$25,000

TURNAGE, BEN O.

1 transaction

$19,900

MCRAE, DAVID

1 transaction

$18,400

GREEN, JOHNSON M.

1 transaction

$15,000

HURST, PAUL

1 transaction

$12,500

BARBOUR, HALEY

1 transaction

$12,500

CHOUEST AUSTIN, DIONNE

1 transaction

$10,000

Donor Network - Sen. Wicker, Roger F. [R-MS]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

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

Showing 37 nodes and 25 connections (40 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $682,800

Top Donors - Sen. Wicker, Roger F. [R-MS]

Showing top 21 donors by contribution amount

5 Orgs16 Individuals

Industry Impact

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

+Pharmaceuticalsconfidence 0.80
The bill supports efforts to research and develop more effective and affordable tools for malaria prevention, diagnosis, and treatment (Section 7), which could benefit pharmaceutical companies involved in malaria vaccine development and treatment.
+Biotech & Researchconfidence 0.80
The bill welcomes public-private partnerships to research and develop more effective and affordable tools for malaria prevention, diagnosis, and treatment (Section 7), which could benefit biotechnology research firms working on malaria-related projects.
+Health Insuranceconfidence 0.60
The bill aims to reduce malaria case incidence and mortality rates, which could lead to lower healthcare costs for insurance providers (Section 5).
+Hospitals & Health Systemsconfidence 0.60
The bill's goal of reducing malaria prevalence and deaths could lead to fewer hospitalizations and lower treatment costs for hospitals and health systems (Section 3).

Who funds the sponsor on these industries

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

Industries this bill HELPS

Health Insurance$8,000
from 7 contributions
- PENBERTHY, SHANNON MRS.$3,000
- MARCHIO, SAMUEL MR.$2,000
- MARCHETTI, PAUL MR.$1,000
- GOON, JULIE MS.$1,000
- HAYTAIAN, PETER MR.$1,000
Hospitals & Health Systems$750
from 2 contributions
- BARRETT, TODD MR.$750
Biotech & Research$500
from 1 contribution
- MANKO, AMBER MS.$500

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.

Agency for International Development

Strong

Vector: 60%

Pages: 297-299AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill supports the President's Malaria Initiative and global malaria reduction goals, aligning with Project 2025's emphasis on effective global health funding, local capacity building, and updating USAID's portfolio to prioritize outcomes and innovation in disease prevention."

Key themes:global healthUSAID reformmalaria initiativelocal capacity buildingoutcome-focused funding

Agency for International Development

Moderate

Vector: 59%

Pages: 297-299AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill supports malaria eradication and praises the President's Malaria Initiative, which aligns with Project 2025's emphasis on leveraging PMI and strengthening global health efforts. However, it does not address the policy's specific reforms such as localization, competition, faith-based partnerships, or data improvements."

Key themes:malaria eradicationPresident's Malaria Initiativeglobal health fundingUS leadershiphealth initiative support

— 264 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise mission a minimum percentage of its portfolio that must go to new, underutilized, and local partners. Crucial to the strategy will be increasing the use of open com- petition that lowers barriers to entry and fixed-amount awards that carry less of a compliance burden along with eliminating cost-plus reimbursement contracts that favor large companies. Before advancing a new program, the agency should be required to assess existing local activities to avoid undercutting or duplicating them. At every opportunity, USAID should build on existing local initiatives. Global Health. The United States is the world’s largest funder of global health initiatives. For more than 60 years, the American people have offered health assis- tance to the world and saved millions of lives. The USAID Bureau for Global Health (GH), the second largest within USAID, oversees a multibillion-dollar operation to support maternal and child health; voluntary family planning; PEPFAR and the President’s Malaria Initiative (PMI) (both started under President George W. Bush); and other initiatives against other infectious and neglected tropical diseases. Effective use of funds is essential to maximize care for the world’s neediest people. Countries with strong health institutions and sound public health practices responded quickly to and recovered more rapidly from the COVID-19 pandemic. This demonstrates the importance of “localization,” by which USAID helps gov- ernments and the private sector in developing countries to strengthen their own ability to address needed training, services, accountability, and organiza- tional capacity. Unfortunately, many USAID-funded global health activities remain rooted in patterns that began decades ago and measure improvements in terms of inputs— money spent—instead of outcomes achieved. From the 1950s to 1970s, the major recognized threats to human health were infectious diseases such as polio and smallpox, and USAID funded programs “in” a country, not “with” a country. Mater- nal and child health, food, water, and sanitation programs were often intermittent. USAID consistently financed population control, contraception, and abortion as essential to “development.” Most programs focused on one disease or condition but had little integration with other global health activities. Chronic diseases were ignored. Consequently, the next conservative Administration should focus on updating the Global Health Bureau’s portfolio, emphasizing a comprehensive approach to supporting women, children, and families; building host-country institutional capacity; increasing awards to local and faith-based partners (expanding what occurred during the Trump Administration with the NPI); and improving USAID’s ability to coordinate with local partners. Updating Funding Priorities. The Bureau should identify and eliminate out- dated and ineffective concepts and focus on funding innovation. A rigorous review is necessary to ensure that current programs and funding streams avoid wasting taxpayer dollars and prioritize what is needed now and what works. — 265 — Agency for International Development Focusing on Holistic Health Care and Support for Women, Children, and Families. The continued high rate of maternal and infant mortality is a persistent global tragedy. Contrary to current publicity, this problem is not solved by abortion. Families genuinely cherish children. The next leadership at USAID must focus attention on women and children’s health (including unborn children) as well as health risks across life spans, including childhood infections, cervical cancer, adolescent risks, and family stability, by utilizing a coordinated approach. The Bureau should implement a “Request for Application for Resilient Families” that harvests collaborative funds from siloed programs and makes individuals and the family, not diseases or conditions, the true focus of intervention. Increasing USAID Collaboration with Faith-Based Organizations. FBOs historically have been much more successful in outreach to remote and vulnerable populations, based on trust built through decades of service. The value of collab- orating with FBOs was demonstrated in the October 2020 Evidence Summit on Religious Engagement. In sub-Saharan Africa, FBOs often provide more than 80 percent of health care, especially to the extremely poor. In contrast, the Global Health Bureau historically has provided 85 percent of its funding to large U.S. NGOs with significant overhead costs, as a result of which only 20 percent–30 percent of funding reaches people in need.15 Leveraging the Strength and Experience of Presidential Initiatives. Mil- lions of people are alive today because of the American people’s investment in PEPFAR and PMI. The training, laboratory, clinical intervention, health educa- tion, data collection, and organizational platforms of these programs became the bedrock for responding to the COVID pandemic. It is time for these programs to become part of an integrated, strong, and sustainable network of health care and public health in developing countries. A smooth transition to national ownership and funding, however, will require better coordination of USAID’s own stovepiped programs with PEPFAR and PMI. Strengthening the Collection and Use of Data. Good decisions are based on accurate data. For decades, global health programs have relied mostly on statis- tical modeling (rather than actual data) or survey data (the weakest type of data). Poor data quality undermines both the evaluation and improvement of desired outcomes achieved by our global health programs. The Trump Administration implemented critical updates of PEPFAR’s systems for the collection and reporting of data to increase transparency and hold funded partners and overseas missions accountable. The next conservative Administration should apply these reforms to all of USAID’s global health programs. Strengthening Private-Sector Engagement. The Bureau’s Center for Inno- vation and Impact (CII) should be empowered to expand networks of private and faith-based health organizations that can develop projects using develop- ment-impact bonds, capital funds, and innovative technologies, including with the

Agency for International Development

Moderate

Vector: 58%

Pages: 297-299AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill shares the Project 2025 focus on global health, leveraging PMI/Pepfar, and reducing disease burden (including childhood infections like malaria), but does not address the policy’s specific emphases on women’s/children’s holistic care, faith‑based collaboration, data reforms, or private‑sector engagement mechanisms."

Key themes:global healthmalaria reductionPEPFAR/PMI leverageUS leadershipchildhood infections

— 265 — Agency for International Development Focusing on Holistic Health Care and Support for Women, Children, and Families. The continued high rate of maternal and infant mortality is a persistent global tragedy. Contrary to current publicity, this problem is not solved by abortion. Families genuinely cherish children. The next leadership at USAID must focus attention on women and children’s health (including unborn children) as well as health risks across life spans, including childhood infections, cervical cancer, adolescent risks, and family stability, by utilizing a coordinated approach. The Bureau should implement a “Request for Application for Resilient Families” that harvests collaborative funds from siloed programs and makes individuals and the family, not diseases or conditions, the true focus of intervention. Increasing USAID Collaboration with Faith-Based Organizations. FBOs historically have been much more successful in outreach to remote and vulnerable populations, based on trust built through decades of service. The value of collab- orating with FBOs was demonstrated in the October 2020 Evidence Summit on Religious Engagement. In sub-Saharan Africa, FBOs often provide more than 80 percent of health care, especially to the extremely poor. In contrast, the Global Health Bureau historically has provided 85 percent of its funding to large U.S. NGOs with significant overhead costs, as a result of which only 20 percent–30 percent of funding reaches people in need.15 Leveraging the Strength and Experience of Presidential Initiatives. Mil- lions of people are alive today because of the American people’s investment in PEPFAR and PMI. The training, laboratory, clinical intervention, health educa- tion, data collection, and organizational platforms of these programs became the bedrock for responding to the COVID pandemic. It is time for these programs to become part of an integrated, strong, and sustainable network of health care and public health in developing countries. A smooth transition to national ownership and funding, however, will require better coordination of USAID’s own stovepiped programs with PEPFAR and PMI. Strengthening the Collection and Use of Data. Good decisions are based on accurate data. For decades, global health programs have relied mostly on statis- tical modeling (rather than actual data) or survey data (the weakest type of data). Poor data quality undermines both the evaluation and improvement of desired outcomes achieved by our global health programs. The Trump Administration implemented critical updates of PEPFAR’s systems for the collection and reporting of data to increase transparency and hold funded partners and overseas missions accountable. The next conservative Administration should apply these reforms to all of USAID’s global health programs. Strengthening Private-Sector Engagement. The Bureau’s Center for Inno- vation and Impact (CII) should be empowered to expand networks of private and faith-based health organizations that can develop projects using develop- ment-impact bonds, capital funds, and innovative technologies, including with the — 266 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Millennium Challenge Corporation and the new U.S. International Development Finance Corporation. More flexible and agile CII funding will spur innovation within the Bureau and help to enhance countries’ self-reliance in the provision of health care. Improving Bureau Hiring, Staffing, and Recruitment Practices. The Global Health Bureau should address its own management challenges by modifying the high ratio of contractors to direct hires, holding career leadership accountable for effective management, and building more flexibility in emergency responses. Bureau personnel suffer from “mission drift,” burnout, and a lack of vision. New directives, social agendas, and extra layers of review have obscured core activities and caused talent to leave the agency. Conservative leadership must return the focus to development and improved workforce morale and focus on global out- comes and the efficient use of taxpayer dollars. Holding the U.N., the World Health Organization (WHO), and Other Mul- tilateral Organizations Accountable. Leadership should designate a political appointee to help coordinate cross-agency efforts to hold the U.S. government’s multilateral partners (U.N. and WHO agencies and other international organiza- tions) to a higher level of financial and programmatic accountability, including assurances that language promoting abortion will be removed from U.N. docu- ments, policy statements, and technical literature. The United States must have more prominent representation in international technical committees and regu- lation-setting organizations to ensure the proper execution of American resources, the preservation of our values, the protection of innovation, and the vitality of our biomedical sector. Global Humanitarian Assistance. The U.S. government is the world’s largest humanitarian actor, annually disbursing billions of dollars in lifesaving assistance— food, water, shelter, emergency health care, and related protection support—to tens of millions of vulnerable people. Funded by the U.S. Congress through the International Disaster Assistance (IDA) account, USAID pays for nearly half of the budget of the Nobel Prize–winning U.N. World Food Programme (WFP) as well as dozens of simultaneous operations that range from responses to hurricanes in Central America to tackling outbreaks of Ebola in Central Africa and caring for millions of people displaced by ongoing conflicts. USAID’s emergency responses once were focused primarily on natural cata- clysms such as hurricanes, floods, and earthquakes. Today, the agency spends more than 80 percent of its humanitarian budget on chronic man-made crises. Most of these “emergency responses” began years ago and absorb billions of dollars annu- ally with no end in sight. Every year sees financial demands grow in response to new conflicts, most recently Ukraine. The budget of the Bureau for Humanitarian Assistance (BHA) has doubled compared to just a few years ago, and BHA can no longer manage its funds responsibly. A politically powerful foreign aid industry that

Department of Agriculture

Minimal

Vector: 59%

Pages: 347-349AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on global malaria awareness and eradication efforts, while the Project 2025 policy excerpt addresses domestic USDA programs such as school meals, conservation compliance, and food production—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 Health and Human Services

Minimal

Vector: 59%

Pages: 488-490AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on supporting World Malaria Day and global malaria eradication, while the Project 2025 excerpt addresses domestic health policy topics such as abortion data reporting, gender identity data collection, FDA generic drug competition, laboratory-developed tests, drug shortages, and abortion pills, with no substantive overlap."

Key themes:healthpublic health

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

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. Wicker, Roger F.

Regional Ocean Partnerships Reauthorization Act of 2026

119/s/3791

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2027

119/s/4784

TORNADO Act

119/s/258

Back to All Bills