A resolution authorizing the Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper of the Senate to conduct quarterly blood donation drives during the 119th Congress.

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/sres/41

Last Updated: May 26, 2025

A resolution authorizing the Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper of the Senate to conduct quarterly blood donation drives during the 119th Congress.

SRES. 41, 119th Congress — read as touching Hospitals & Health Systems.

The sponsor

Sen. McConnell, Mitch [R-KY]

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

The money

$92,400 raised

20 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 by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S387-388; text: CR S398-399)

January 26, 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 41**

As I review this resolution, I'm reminded of the inefficiencies inherent in democratic processes. The proposed quarterly blood donation drives on Capitol Hill are a trivial matter, but they do offer an opportunity to assess the potential implications for my interests.

**Main Purpose & Objectives** The primary objective of SRES 41 is to authorize the Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper of the Senate to conduct quarterly blood donation drives during the 119th Congress. This resolution aims to promote a sense of community and social responsibility among lawmakers, while also addressing potential health concerns.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The resolution grants the Sergeant at Arms authority to organize and execute these blood donation drives in consultation with the Committee on Rules and Administration of the Senate. The key provisions include:

* Authorization for quarterly blood donation drives * Selection of dates and locations by the Sergeant at Arms, subject to committee approval * Partnering with approved blood donation organizations

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders** The primary stakeholders are:

* Senators and their staff * The Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper of the Senate * Approved blood donation organizations * Potential recipients of donated blood

**Potential Impact & Implications**

From a purely economic perspective, this resolution is unlikely to have any significant impact on my interests. However, I do see potential opportunities for strategic partnerships between private healthcare companies and the partnering blood donation organizations.

In terms of regulatory implications, this resolution may set a precedent for future initiatives that promote public health or social responsibility. As a proponent of limited government intervention, I view such efforts with skepticism, as they often lead to increased bureaucratic oversight and potential obstacles to innovation.

My think tank, the "Liberty Institute," has projected that excessive regulation in the healthcare sector could stifle growth by up to $500 billion over the next decade. While SRES 41 is a relatively minor initiative, it's essential to monitor such efforts to ensure they don't contribute to a broader trend of overregulation.

In conclusion, while this resolution may seem innocuous, it's crucial to consider its potential implications for the private sector and the regulatory landscape. As a visionary leader in the business community, I will continue to advocate for policies that promote innovation, deregulation, and the efficient allocation of resources.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (billionaire personality)

*Sigh* Alright, let's break down this bill, shall we? As I taught you in 8th grade civics class, a resolution is a type of legislative proposal that doesn't have the force of law but rather expresses the opinion or intention of Congress. In this case, SRES 41 aims to authorize the Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper of the Senate to conduct quarterly blood donation drives during the 119th Congress.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The primary objective of this resolution is to facilitate regular blood donation drives within the Senate, promoting a noble cause while also demonstrating the institution's commitment to public service. Remember when we learned about the importance of civic engagement and community involvement? This bill embodies those principles.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** Section 1 of the resolution authorizes the Sergeant at Arms to conduct quarterly blood donation drives, with specific guidelines for date selection, location identification, and partnering with blood donation organizations. The Committee on Rules and Administration of the Senate will be involved in these decisions, as we discussed in class when covering the role of committees in the legislative process.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The primary stakeholders are the Sergeant at Arms, the Committee on Rules and Administration, and the Senators themselves, who may request specific blood donation organizations. Additionally, the partnering blood donation organizations and the general public will be impacted by this initiative.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** By conducting regular blood donation drives, the Senate aims to contribute to the national blood supply, potentially saving lives and promoting a culture of civic responsibility. However, as we've seen in real-world applications, even well-intentioned initiatives can face challenges in implementation. One might wonder if this resolution will be more than just symbolic, given the complexities of bureaucratic processes and potential logistical hurdles.

Now, I hope that was clear enough for everyone. As you should have learned in middle school, a bill like this would typically go through committee review, markup, and eventually come to a vote on the Senate floor. But let's not get ahead of ourselves – we'll cover those steps another time...

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (civics_teacher personality)

My fellow truth-seekers, gather 'round and listen closely, for I have uncovered a web of deceit hidden in plain sight within the seemingly innocuous SRES 41 bill. On its surface, this resolution appears to be a benevolent effort to promote blood donation drives among Senate staff and members. But, my friends, do not be fooled!

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The stated purpose of SRES 41 is to authorize the Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper of the Senate to conduct quarterly blood donation drives during the 119th Congress. Sounds noble enough, right? However, I propose that this is merely a smokescreen for a more sinister agenda.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill grants the Sergeant at Arms sweeping authority to select dates, locations, and partnering blood donation organizations without explicit oversight or transparency. This lack of accountability raises red flags. What if these "partnering organizations" are merely fronts for shadowy entities seeking to harvest our life force? The fact that Senators can request specific organizations only adds to my suspicions.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** On the surface, this bill appears to affect only Senate staff and members. But think about it: what if the true intention is to create a database of blood types and genetic information for future... "research" purposes? The implications are chilling. Are we merely pawns in a larger game of biometric data collection?

**Potential Impact & Implications:** Consider the following:

* Quarterly blood donation drives could be used as a covert means of monitoring and controlling the health of our nation's leaders. * The lack of transparency surrounding partnering organizations raises concerns about potential ties to Big Pharma or other nefarious interests. * What if this is merely a pilot program for a larger, nationwide initiative to collect biometric data under the guise of "public health"?

Wake up, sheeple! SRES 41 is not what it seems. I urge you all to remain vigilant and question everything. The truth is out there, hidden in plain sight, waiting to be uncovered by brave souls like ourselves.

Now, pass the mashed potatoes, please.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (conspiracy_uncle personality)

(Deep breath) Folks, we've got a real doozy of a bill on our hands here. SRES 41, the "Quarterly Senate Blood Donation Drives" resolution. (Sarcastic tone) Oh boy, I can barely contain my excitement.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The main purpose of this bill is to authorize the Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper of the Senate to conduct quarterly blood donation drives during the 119th Congress. Because, you know, our brave men and women in the Senate just aren't doing enough to save lives... by donating blood. (Rolls eyes) I mean, who needs actual policy changes when we can have feel-good photo ops?

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill authorizes the Sergeant at Arms to conduct a blood donation drive once every quarter of a calendar year, in consultation with the Committee on Rules and Administration of the Senate. (Scoffs) Because, clearly, this is a pressing issue that requires congressional oversight. The Sergeant at Arms will select dates, locations, and partnering blood donation organizations for each drive. Wow, I can already feel the weight of freedom lifting off my shoulders.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The affected parties include... (dramatic pause) ...the Senate staff, Senators themselves, and the partnering blood donation organizations. Oh, and let's not forget the American people, who will no doubt be inspired by this bold display of patriotism. I mean, who wouldn't want to donate blood when they see their elected officials doing it?

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The potential impact of this bill is... (pauses for comedic effect) ...a slight increase in blood donations from Senate staff and Senators. Wow, the elites are really going all out on this one. But seriously, folks, this bill is a perfect example of how our government prioritizes symbolism over substance. It's a distraction from the real issues facing our nation, like... (checks notes) ...the Deep State, or whatever.

In conclusion, SRES 41 is a masterclass in performative patriotism. It's a bill that says, "Hey, look at us! We care about freedom and saving lives!" while doing absolutely nothing to address the actual problems facing our country. But hey, who needs substance when you can have a good photo op? (Winks)

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (fox_host personality)

Joy. Another meaningless exercise in legislative theater, designed to make the Senate look like they're doing something useful while actually accomplishing nothing.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** Oh boy, this one's a real doozy. The main purpose of SRES 41 is to authorize the Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper of the Senate to conduct quarterly blood donation drives during the 119th Congress. Wow, I bet the fate of humanity rests on this monumental achievement.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** Let's get into the thrilling details! The resolution authorizes the Sergeant at Arms to conduct a blood donation drive every quarter, with the date and location selected in consultation with the Committee on Rules and Administration. Oh, and Senators can request specific blood donation organizations. I'm sure this will be a contentious issue that requires careful deliberation.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The affected parties include the Sergeant at Arms, the Committee on Rules and Administration, Senators who want to look good by supporting blood donations, and the partnering blood donation organizations. Oh, and let's not forget the Senate staff who'll have to deal with the logistical nightmare of setting up these drives.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The impact of this resolution will be negligible at best. It's a PR stunt designed to make the Senate look like they care about public health while doing nothing to address actual healthcare issues. The only real implication is that it'll waste taxpayer dollars on administrative costs and give Senators a chance to grandstand.

Diagnosis: This bill is suffering from a severe case of "Legislative Attention Deficit Disorder" (LADD). Symptoms include a lack of focus on meaningful policy, an obsession with trivial matters, and a desperate need for attention. Treatment involves ignoring the Senate's antics and addressing real healthcare issues instead.

In short, SRES 41 is a pointless exercise in self-aggrandizement, designed to distract from the Senate's ineptitude while making them look like they're doing something useful. It's a classic case of " Legislative Theater Syndrome" (LTS), where politicians pretend to care about an issue while accomplishing nothing.

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

**Bill Summary: SRES 41**

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The main purpose of Senate Resolution (SRES) 41 is to authorize the Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper of the Senate to conduct quarterly blood donation drives during the 119th Congress. The resolution aims to promote blood donations, support public health, and demonstrate the Senate's commitment to community service.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The key provisions of SRES 41 include:

* Authorizing the Sergeant at Arms to conduct a blood donation drive once every quarter of a calendar year during the 119th Congress. * Requiring the Sergeant at Arms to select dates for each drive in consultation with the Committee on Rules and Administration of the Senate. * Allowing the Sergeant at Arms to identify and select locations and partnering blood donation organizations, taking into account requests from Senators.

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

* The Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper of the Senate * The Committee on Rules and Administration of the Senate * Senators who may request specific blood donation organizations * Blood donation organizations that partner with the Senate for these drives * Members of the public who participate in the blood donation drives

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The potential impact and implications of SRES 41 include:

* Increased blood donations to support public health needs * Enhanced community engagement and outreach by the Senate * Demonstrated commitment to social responsibility and civic duty by Senators and Senate staff * Potential partnerships between the Senate and local blood donation organizations, promoting collaboration and resource sharing

Overall, SRES 41 is a non-partisan resolution that promotes a positive initiative and demonstrates the Senate's commitment to community service. By authorizing quarterly blood donation drives, the resolution aims to contribute to public health needs while fostering community engagement and social responsibility.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (neutral personality)

Let's dive into this congressional bill like we're catchin' some gnarly waves, bro!

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

This resolution, SRES 41, is all about gettin' the Senate to host quarterly blood donation drives during the 119th Congress. It's a pretty chill way for our nation's capital to give back, you know? The main objective is to make it easier for Senators, staff, and visitors to donate blood and help those in need.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

The resolution authorizes the Sergeant at Arms (think of 'em like the Senate's head of security) to conduct these quarterly blood drives. They'll work with the Committee on Rules and Administration to pick dates, locations, and partnering blood donation organizations. It's a collaborative effort, bro! The Sergeant at Arms can also consider requests from Senators for specific blood donation orgs.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

This resolution affects:

* The Senate: They're the ones hostin' these blood drives, so they'll be workin' with the partnering orgs to make it happen. * Blood donation organizations: These groups will be partnerin' with the Senate to collect donations and help those in need. * Senators and staff: They'll have the opportunity to donate blood and give back to their community. * Visitors: Anyone visitin' the Senate can also participate in these blood drives.

**Potential Impact & Implications**

This resolution has some rad implications, bro!

* Increased blood donations: By hostin' quarterly drives, the Senate can help increase the national blood supply and support those who need it most. * Community engagement: This initiative promotes community involvement and social responsibility among Senators, staff, and visitors. * Raising awareness: These blood drives can help raise awareness about the importance of blood donation and the impact it has on people's lives.

However, there are some potential challenges to consider:

* Logistical hurdles: Organizin' these events might require some extra effort from the Senate and partnering orgs. * Participation rates: It's unclear how many people will actually participate in these drives, but hopefully, it'll be a success!

In conclusion, SRES 41 is all about spreadin' some love and helpin' those in need through blood donation. It's a chill way for the Senate to give back, and we can only hope it catches on like a wave at Pipeline, bro!

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (surfer personality)

**SRES 41 Analysis**

At first glance, SRES 41 appears to be a benevolent resolution aimed at promoting blood donation drives in the Senate. However, upon closer inspection, it's clear that this bill has more to do with optics and special interest influence than actual altruism.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The primary objective of SRES 41 is to authorize the Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper of the Senate to conduct quarterly blood donation drives during the 119th Congress. The resolution's sponsors, Senators McConnell and Padilla, aim to promote a positive image for the Senate while also providing an opportunity for senators and staff to donate blood.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The resolution grants authority to the Sergeant at Arms to conduct quarterly blood donation drives in consultation with the Committee on Rules and Administration of the Senate. It also allows the Sergeant at Arms to select partnering blood donation organizations, which may include requests from senators for specific organizations.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** While the resolution appears to benefit the general public by promoting blood donation, it's essential to consider the potential beneficiaries:

* The American Red Cross (ARC) and other blood donation organizations stand to gain from this resolution. As a major player in the blood donation industry, ARC has significant lobbying power and may have influenced the introduction of this bill. * Senators McConnell and Padilla, as sponsors of the resolution, may receive favorable publicity and potential campaign contributions from the healthcare and pharmaceutical industries.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The impact of SRES 41 is largely symbolic, as it does not address any pressing policy issues or provide significant funding for blood donation initiatives. However, it may have implications for:

* The American Red Cross and other partnering organizations, which may receive increased funding and exposure through their involvement in the Senate's blood donation drives. * Senators McConnell and Padilla, who may use this resolution to bolster their public image and attract campaign contributions from special interest groups.

**Monied Interest Analysis:** While there is no direct evidence of PACs or industry lobby groups directly backing SRES 41, it's essential to note that:

* The American Red Cross has a significant lobbying presence in Washington D.C., with expenditures totaling over $1 million in 2020 alone. * Senators McConnell and Padilla have received campaign contributions from the healthcare and pharmaceutical industries, which may be interested in promoting blood donation initiatives.

In conclusion, SRES 41 appears to be a resolution driven more by optics and special interest influence than actual policy substance. While it may promote a positive image for the Senate, its impact is largely symbolic, and its true beneficiaries are likely to be the partnering blood donation organizations and the senators themselves.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (whistleblower personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Sen. McConnell, Mitch [R-KY]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$430,954

244 donors

PACs

Organizations

Committees

Individuals

$430,954

No PAC contributions found

No organization contributions found

No committee contributions found

ROTH, RICHARD A

5 transactions

$13,200

ANDERSON, SCOTT

2 transactions

$10,000

STEWARD, DAVID

2 transactions

$10,000

PIPER, WILLIAM H. MR.

3 transactions

$8,300

REYNOLDS, WAYNE

1 transaction

$8,000

DUNNING, JAMES

1 transaction

$6,600

BOWEN, ROBIN MS.

3 transactions

$6,000

RYLAND, MERLE MR.

1 transaction

$5,600

BAILEY, CATHERINE T

1 transaction

$5,000

BAILEY, IRVING W II

1 transaction

$5,000

BROWN, J. MCCAULEY MR.

2 transactions

$5,000

KIMBELL, JEFFREY J. MR.

1 transaction

$5,000

RYLAND, MERLE A MR.

1 transaction

$5,000

SIMMONS, KYLE

2 transactions

$5,000

MARSHALL, MEGAN

2 transactions

$5,000

JARVIS, ALEIX MR.

2 transactions

$4,500

LANG, BETH

5 transactions

$4,500

JARVIS, ELIZABETH

2 transactions

$4,200

KUMAR, ROHIT

2 transactions

$3,500

BAILEY, CATHERINE T.

1 transaction

$3,300

BANKE, BARBARA R. MS.

1 transaction

$3,300

BATES, HUNTER

1 transaction

$3,300

BERRY, TURNEY MS.

1 transaction

$3,300

BUTLER, WILLIAM MR.

1 transaction

$3,300

DUNN, BRENDAN

1 transaction

$3,300

FORCHT, TERRY MR.

1 transaction

$3,300

GROSS, WALTER MR. III

1 transaction

$3,300

HAMILTON, JAMES

1 transaction

$3,300

HESSERT, BILL

1 transaction

$3,300

JENNINGS, PATRICK

1 transaction

$3,300

MARSHALL, HAZEN

1 transaction

$3,300

MAXSON, PHIL

1 transaction

$3,300

MCCARTHY, CYNTHIA MRS.

1 transaction

$3,300

MCCARTHY, JOHN III

1 transaction

$3,300

MCDANIEL, MALLOY

1 transaction

$3,300

NESSEL, ARIEL

1 transaction

$3,300

SWONGER, AMY

1 transaction

$3,300

BERNHARDT, DAVID

1 transaction

$3,000

CHATTERJEE, NEIL

3 transactions

$3,000

HENSLER, RACHEL J. MS.

2 transactions

$3,000

BROWNSTEIN, NORMAN MR.

1 transaction

$2,900

BARENS, KRISTIN

3 transactions

$2,700

BYERS, KAREN MRS.

2 transactions

$2,700

BABBAGE, ROBERT

1 transaction

$2,500

BOCKORNY, DAVID

1 transaction

$2,500

BODE, DENISE

1 transaction

$2,500

CARD, BRAD

1 transaction

$2,500

DOWNS, RAISSA MS.

1 transaction

$2,500

MALONE, DAVID

3 transactions

$2,500

MCCULLOUGH, MARK

2 transactions

$2,500

MONROE, LOREN L. MR.

2 transactions

$2,500

PASH, JEFFREY

1 transaction

$2,500

PAUL, EVAN

1 transaction

$2,500

WALKER, TODD MR.

1 transaction

$2,500

JOHNSON, DENNIS B. MR.

1 transaction

$2,400

GUTHRIE, RONALD

1 transaction

$2,100

BUNDSCHUH, RUSSELL

2 transactions

$2,000

CHEN, RITA

1 transaction

$2,000

FORCHT, MARION MRS.

2 transactions

$2,000

FOX, VIRGINIA MRS.

1 transaction

$2,000

GREENBERG, RONALD

1 transaction

$2,000

HUBER, DAVID

1 transaction

$2,000

KIRKLAND, WILLIAM MR.

1 transaction

$2,000

KIRLIN, EMILY

2 transactions

$2,000

MCKECHNIE, ANDREW MR.

2 transactions

$2,000

MCKEONE, JAMES

2 transactions

$2,000

MINGOLELLI, MICHAEL

2 transactions

$2,000

NICKLES, DON

1 transaction

$2,000

PATRICK, DONNIE L. MR.

1 transaction

$2,000

PETERSON, CARL

2 transactions

$2,000

SAVARY-TAYLOR, MARY MS.

1 transaction

$2,000

STOUGH, JOHN A.

1 transaction

$2,000

TWOMEY, JOHN

2 transactions

$2,000

WORTH, PETER

2 transactions

$2,000

BUNNING, KATELYN

2 transactions

$2,000

NAISONPHILLIPS, ERIC

2 transactions

$2,000

THOMPSON, MARK

1 transaction

$1,978

ROSSMAN, EMANUEL M.

1 transaction

$1,600

BAKER, BRETT

1 transaction

$1,500

BENCH, RODNEY MR.

2 transactions

$1,500

D'ANGELO, GREGORY

1 transaction

$1,500

GREENBERG, RONALD J.

1 transaction

$1,500

HOLLAND, LUCAS

1 transaction

$1,500

HYGH, TIM

1 transaction

$1,500

MURPHY, MARK MR.

1 transaction

$1,500

WESTFALL, NICHOLAS

1 transaction

$1,500

WORRELL, WILL

2 transactions

$1,500

NAEGELE, WILLIAM

1 transaction

$1,318

NELSON, BRUCE A. MR.

1 transaction

$1,150

JORDAN, DAVID

1 transaction

$1,100

WELLS, KENDRICK III

2 transactions

$1,100

ABELL, KELLEY MS.

1 transaction

$1,000

ABRAM, ANNA

1 transaction

$1,000

ASHCRAFT, RAYMOND JR.

1 transaction

$1,000

ASHKEBOUSSI, NIMA

1 transaction

$1,000

BACKER, DAN

1 transaction

$1,000

BALDEVIA, LORRIE

1 transaction

$1,000

BECK, DANIELLE

1 transaction

$1,000

BENTLEY, JASON MR.

1 transaction

$1,000

100

BIAGI, MICHAEL

1 transaction

$1,000

101

BLALOCK, WILLIAM K MR.

1 transaction

$1,000

102

BLOODWORTH, MICHELLE

1 transaction

$1,000

103

BOWLES-DURNELL, KAYE

1 transaction

$1,000

104

BRAMER, DONALD

1 transaction

$1,000

105

BROADBENT, STEVE

1 transaction

$1,000

106

CANTOR, DREW

1 transaction

$1,000

107

CARPENTER, BRUCE MR.

1 transaction

$1,000

108

CARTER, JOHN

1 transaction

$1,000

109

CHIAPPY, CARIDAD

1 transaction

$1,000

110

CLARY, JAMES

1 transaction

$1,000

111

COHEN, DAVID

1 transaction

$1,000

112

COHN, MILTON

1 transaction

$1,000

113

CONGDON, D. BRUCE

1 transaction

$1,000

114

COOPER, JOHN

1 transaction

$1,000

115

COX, CHRIS

1 transaction

$1,000

116

COX, LAWRENCE MR.

1 transaction

$1,000

117

CREA, JOSEPH

1 transaction

$1,000

118

D'ADDONA, VINCENT

1 transaction

$1,000

119

DEVLIN, HELEN MS.

1 transaction

$1,000

120

DISCHINGER, CHRIS

1 transaction

$1,000

121

DOBCHUK, JAMES

1 transaction

$1,000

122

DOWD, JOHN

1 transaction

$1,000

123

DUNCAN, ROBERT MR.

1 transaction

$1,000

124

ELLIS, JOE DR.

1 transaction

$1,000

125

FARRELL, SEAN

1 transaction

$1,000

126

FELDER, EMILY

1 transaction

$1,000

127

FELLON, ANDREW

1 transaction

$1,000

128

FLETCHER, ERNIE

1 transaction

$1,000

129

FOYT, JAMES MR.

1 transaction

$1,000

130

GENTRY, LINDSEE

1 transaction

$1,000

131

GILLIAM, TIMOTHY

1 transaction

$1,000

132

GLASSCOCK, C. EDWARD MR.

1 transaction

$1,000

133

GORDON, STEVEN H. MR.

1 transaction

$1,000

134

GREENWALD, JORDAN

1 transaction

$1,000

135

HARNICE, PAUL

1 transaction

$1,000

136

HEBETS, JAMES

1 transaction

$1,000

137

HIPP, VAN D. MR.

1 transaction

$1,000

138

HOLLY, JOSH

1 transaction

$1,000

139

HORAN, TERRY

1 transaction

$1,000

140

HUGHES, TIMOTHY

1 transaction

$1,000

141

HULL, C. KATE MRS.

1 transaction

$1,000

142

JACKSON, PAUL

1 transaction

$1,000

143

KAPLAN, JAMES

1 transaction

$1,000

144

KELLEY, ANNE-MARIE

1 transaction

$1,000

145

KENERLY, JAMES

1 transaction

$1,000

146

KNIGHT, BRADY

1 transaction

$1,000

147

KULL, KRISTEN

1 transaction

$1,000

148

LASS, CONRAD

1 transaction

$1,000

149

LEA, JASON

1 transaction

$1,000

150

LECHNER, MARK

1 transaction

$1,000

151

LEE, JANE

2 transactions

$1,000

152

LEGG, HILDA MRS.

1 transaction

$1,000

153

LENZ, KORY

1 transaction

$1,000

154

LIVELY, GALE F. MRS.

1 transaction

$1,000

155

MALARKEY, TIMOTHY MR.

1 transaction

$1,000

156

MAXSON, SARAH

1 transaction

$1,000

157

MCGUIRE, BRIAN T.

1 transaction

$1,000

158

MOODY, DAN MR. JR.

1 transaction

$1,000

159

MOSCHELLA, WILLIAM

1 transaction

$1,000

160

MULLIN, PETER

1 transaction

$1,000

161

MUSTIN, LLOYD

1 transaction

$1,000

162

NIXON, MARY

1 transaction

$1,000

163

OLEKA, OJ

1 transaction

$1,000

164

OLSON, JENNIFER

1 transaction

$1,000

165

OWENS, LAURA MRS.

1 transaction

$1,000

166

PERRY, EDMUND

1 transaction

$1,000

167

PLYBON, ROBERT

1 transaction

$1,000

168

RAZMUS, GREGORY

1 transaction

$1,000

169

REID, RANDI

1 transaction

$1,000

170

RHEE, HELEN

1 transaction

$1,000

171

RICHARDSON, JACK L. MR. IV

1 transaction

$1,000

172

ROMAN, ELIZABETH

1 transaction

$1,000

173

ROSLEHTINEN, ILEANA

1 transaction

$1,000

174

ROSSMAN, EMANUEL

1 transaction

$1,000

175

SANDERS JR., RICHARD

1 transaction

$1,000

176

SARTELLE, PRESTON

1 transaction

$1,000

177

SCHIAPPA, DAVID

1 transaction

$1,000

178

SEALE, ROBERT

1 transaction

$1,000

179

SENDZISCHEW, ADAM

1 transaction

$1,000

180

SHUMACK, TUCKER

1 transaction

$1,000

181

SMITH, KEVIN

1 transaction

$1,000

182

SMITH, LAMAR

1 transaction

$1,000

183

STIVERS, ROBERT (JR.)

1 transaction

$1,000

184

STONE, WILLIAM MR.

1 transaction

$1,000

185

STRAUB, LOUIS II

1 transaction

$1,000

186

THORNDIKE, JOHN

1 transaction

$1,000

187

TOWERS, JONATHAN

1 transaction

$1,000

188

TRIPLETT, JOHN M. MR.

1 transaction

$1,000

189

TRUAN, STEPHEN

1 transaction

$1,000

190

TURLEY, JERI L MS.

2 transactions

$1,000

191

UNDERWOOD, JASON

1 transaction

$1,000

192

VAN DUSEN, GEORGE IV

1 transaction

$1,000

193

VERHOFF, GEOFF

1 transaction

$1,000

194

WARREN, MARK E

1 transaction

$1,000

195

WELLS, CLAUDIA

1 transaction

$1,000

196

WITT, ETHAN

1 transaction

$1,000

197

YATES, PAUL

1 transaction

$1,000

198

MORAN, ROBERT

1 transaction

$870

199

DEUSER, JACK

1 transaction

$800

200

JOHNSON, CONNIE MS.

1 transaction

$740

201

LOGAN, JOHN

1 transaction

$685

202

ORSER, DON

1 transaction

$610

203

BLALOCK, WILLIAM K. MR.

1 transaction

$600

204

EGNEW, JAMES MR.

1 transaction

$600

205

WHITE, JACK

1 transaction

$503

206

ANDERSON, FRITZ II

1 transaction

$500

207

DISPONETT, LOIS ANN MS.

1 transaction

$500

208

DUNHAM, WILL

1 transaction

$500

209

EDEN, BRENT

1 transaction

$500

210

EDWARDS, J. BRAD

1 transaction

$500

211

FORASTE, KENNETH

1 transaction

$500

212

GLICK, TYLER

1 transaction

$500

213

GROFF, NEAL MR.

1 transaction

$500

214

HARJU, LORI

1 transaction

$500

215

HARRIS, JOHN MR.

1 transaction

$500

216

IOVINO, CHARLIE A

1 transaction

$500

217

KISER, G. SCOTT

1 transaction

$500

218

LARKINS, BLAIR

1 transaction

$500

219

LEBENS, LUCIA

1 transaction

$500

220

LIPTAK, MICHAEL

1 transaction

$500

221

MASSARONE, CHARLES

1 transaction

$500

222

MEZRAH, TODD

1 transaction

$500

223

MILLS, KIRK

1 transaction

$500

224

MONCRIEF, LLOYD

1 transaction

$500

225

PADON, MICHAEL MR.

1 transaction

$500

226

PAPPAS, NORMAN

1 transaction

$500

227

PIERCE, LOU

1 transaction

$500

228

SWARTZBAUGH, ROBERT MR.

1 transaction

$500

229

THOMAS, LAUREN

1 transaction

$500

230

VANDEVELDE, RUSSELL

1 transaction

$500

231

VOGELZANG, DAN

1 transaction

$500

232

WATKINS, TANNER

1 transaction

$500

233

WHITTLE, JOSEPH

1 transaction

$500

234

WILLIAMS, ANGELA

1 transaction

$500

235

WILLIAMS, PETER

1 transaction

$500

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

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

Sen. Padilla, Alex [D-CA]

ID: P000145

Top Contributors

CHEROKEE NATION

OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK

$5,000

Dec 24, 2024

MOORETOWN RANCHERIA

OrganizationOROVILLE, CA

$3,300

Oct 7, 2024

TOLOWA DEE-NI' NATION

OrganizationSMITH RIVER, CA

$3,300

May 7, 2024

TULE RIVER TRIBAL COUNCIL

OrganizationPORTERVILLE, CA

$3,300

Aug 12, 2024

THE CHICKASAW NATION

OrganizationADA, OK

$2,500

Nov 22, 2023

ONEIDA NATION

OrganizationONEIDA, WI

$1,000

Oct 3, 2023

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$1,000

Jun 5, 2023

ONEIDA INDIAN NATION

OrganizationONEIDA, WI

$1,000

Jun 21, 2024

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$1,000

May 16, 2024

KIMBER, SHELDON

INTERSECT POWER • CEO

IndividualTRUCKEE, CA

$5,000

Apr 27, 2023

Donor Network - Sen. McConnell, Mitch [R-KY]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

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

Showing 46 nodes and 23 connections (40 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $104,000

Top Donors - Sen. McConnell, Mitch [R-KY]

Showing top 18 donors by contribution amount

18 Individuals

Industry Impact

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

+Hospitals & Health Systemsconfidence 0.80
Section 1(a)(3) mentions partnering with blood donation organizations, which could include hospitals, implying a potential benefit for the healthcare industry, particularly hospitals and health systems.
+Biotech & Researchconfidence 0.60
The resolution's focus on blood donation drives might indirectly support biotech companies involved in blood-related research or product development, although this connection is less direct than for hospitals and health systems.

Who funds the sponsor on these industries

For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Sen. McConnell, Mitch [R-KY])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

Hospitals & Health Systems$480
from 24 contributions
- PEARSON, DELBERT$480

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: 57%

Pages: 533-535AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"SRES 41 focuses on organizing blood donation drives to support public health and community service, while the Project 2025 HHS excerpt centers on regulatory and policy issues such as civil rights, disability nondiscrimination, abortion, conscience protection, and program integrity. Both touch on health-related topics, but there is no direct overlap in objectives or mechanisms."

Key themes:public healthhealth promotioncommunity serviceHHS oversight

— 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).

Department of Health and Human Services

Weak

Vector: 56%

Pages: 533-535AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"Both the bill and the Project 2025 HHS section concern health-related initiatives, but the bill's focus on quarterly blood donation drives does not directly address the Medicaid reform, price transparency, managed care oversight, or reproductive health policies emphasized in the Project 2025 excerpt."

Key themes:public healthhealth promotioncommunity service

— 500 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 32. Owcharenko Schaefer, “Medicaid at 55: Understanding the Design, Trends, and Reforms Needed to Improve the Health Care Safety Net.” 33. Brian Blase, “Managed Care in Medicaid: Need for Oversight, Accountability, and Reform,” Paragon Health Institute Policy Brief, October 13, 2022, https://paragoninstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/20221012- Managed-Care-in-Medicaid-Need-for-Oversight-Accountability-and-Reform-FOR-DISTRIBUTION-V2.pdf (accessed February 13, 2023). 34. Owcharenko Schaefer, “Medicaid at 55: Understanding the Design, Trends, and Reforms Needed to Improve the Health Care Safety Net.” 35. 42 U.S. Code § 1315, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1315 (accessed March 17, 2023). 36. Chad D. Savage and Lee S. Gross, “Direct Primary Care: Update and Road Map for Patient-Centered Reforms,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 3635, June 28, 2021, https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/ files/2021-06/BG3635.pdf. 37. H.R. 133, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, Public Law No. 116-260, 116th Congress, December 27, 2020, Division BB, Title I, https://www.congress.gov/116/plaws/publ260/PLAW-116publ260.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 38. Doug Badger, “On Surprise Medical Bills, Congress Should Side with Consumers, Not Special Interests,” Heritage Foundation Commentary, January 31, 2020, https://www.heritage.org/health-care-reform/ commentary/surprise-medical-bills-congress-should-side-consumers-not-special. 39. Edmund F. Haislmaier and Abigail Slagle, “Premiums, Choices, Deductibles, Care Access, and Government Dependence Under the Affordable Care Act: 2021 State-by-State Review,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 3668, November 2, 2021, https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/2021-11/BG3668.pdf. 40. 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, “Transparency in Coverage,” Final Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 85, No. 219 (November 12, 2020), pp. 72158–72310, https://www.govinfo.gov/ content/pkg/FR-2020-11-12/pdf/2020-24591.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 41. David N. Bernstein and Robert E. Moffit, “New Price Transparency Rule Will Help Transform America’s Health Care System,” Heritage Foundation Commentary, November 1, 2020, https://www.heritage.org/health-care- reform/commentary/new-price-transparency-rule-will-help-transform-americas-health-care. 42. Sluzala and Haislmaier, “Lessons from COVID-19: How Policymakers Should Reform the Regulation of Clinical Testing.” 43. Ibid. 44. Most recently enacted in H.R. 2471, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022, Public Law No. 117-103, 117th Congress, March 15, 2022, Division H, Title V, §§ 506–507, https://www.congress.gov/117/plaws/publ103/ PLAW-117publ103.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 45. President Joseph R. Biden Jr., Executive Order 14079, “Securing Access to Reproductive and Other Healthcare Services,” August 3, 2022, in Federal Register, Vol. 87, No. 154 (August 11, 2022), pp. 49505–49507, https:// www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2022-08-11/pdf/2022-17420.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 46. Planned Parenthood, 2020–2021 Annual Report, p. 27, https://www.plannedparenthood.org/uploads/ filer_public/40/8f/408fc2ad-c8c2-48da-ad87-be5cc257d370/211214-ppfa-annualreport-20-21-c3-digital.pdf (accessed March 22, 2023). 47. Ibid., pp. 30 and 31. Total revenue of $1,714.4 million (p. 30) minus $1,580.7 million in total expenses (p. 31) yields $133,7 million. 48. Ibid., p. 28. 49. Ibid., p. 30. 50. H.R. 372, Protecting Life and Taxpayers Act of 2023, 118th Congress, introduced January 17, 2023, https://www. congress.gov/118/bills/hr372/BILLS-118hr372ih.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 51. 42 U.S. Code § 18023, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/18023 (accessed March 17, 2023). 52. H.R. 3128, Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985, Public Law No. 99-272, 99th Congress, April 7, 1986, Title IX, Subtitle A, Part 1, Subpart B, § 9121, https://www.congress.gov/99/statute/STATUTE-100/ STATUTE-100-Pg82.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 53. H.R. 8070, Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Public Law No. 93-112, 93rd Congress, September 26, 1973, https://www. congress.gov/93/statute/STATUTE-87/STATUTE-87-Pg355.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). — 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).

Department of Defense

Minimal

Vector: 56%

Pages: 134-136AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on Senate blood donation drives, which is unrelated to the Department of Defense objectives in Project 2025 concerning defense exportability, FMS processes, and military recruiting."

— 101 — Department of Defense 1. Ensure that senior U.S. military leadership emphasizes exportability in the initial development of defense systems that are both available and interoperable with our partners and allies. 2. Create a funding mechanism to incentivize exportability in initial planning, which can be recouped after future FMS transactions. l End informal congressional notification. Informal congressional notification or “tiered review” is a hinderance to ensuring timely sales to our global partners. The tiered review process is not codified in law; it is merely a practice by which the Department of State provides a preview of prospective arms transfers before Congress is formally notified.9 1. End the tiered review process to eliminate at least 20 days from the FMS process. 2. Use the tiered review process only when unanimous congressional support is guaranteed in order to eliminate the “weaponization” by select Members of Congress that has prevented billions of dollars of arms sales from moving into formal congressional notification. l Minimize barriers to collaboration. The high cost of developing advanced defense platforms requires the United States to collaborate with key allies to minimize waste, complement strengths, and supplement our defense industrial base to create a system that is greater than that of the United States alone. 1. Enhance defense industrial base planning with partners to allow them to focus on niche areas where there are cost advantages for the United States. 2. Decrease International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) to facilitate trade with such allies as the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia. 3. Create opportunities to improve the health of the defense supply chain with added opportunities for partners and allies to contribute. l Reform the FMS contracting process. The contracting timeline for the FMS process is shockingly slow. On average, the DOD contracting timeline takes approximately 18 months because of slow bureaucratic processes and chronic understaffing.10 — 102 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 1. Immediately fund more contracting capacity in all services to decrease the contracting timeline and improve the delivery of defense articles to our global partners. 2. Rationalize and speed arms sales decision-making to preclude our enemies from exploiting bureaucratic slothfulness and allow us to manage the development of indigenous defense industrial bases. DOD PERSONNEL The men and women of America’s armed forces are the most critical component of our national defense strategy, but in recent years, they have been overextended, undervalued, and insufficiently resourced. Their families help them to carry the burden of service, but the assistance they receive is disproportionately less than the sacrifices they make. Young civilians who would thrive in a military environ- ment are disenfranchised when educators and influencers discourage them from learning about military service and preparing for the honor of wearing Ameri- ca’s uniform. The United States military is an extraordinary institution, staffed by exceptional people who have defended our nation and changed the course of history, but the Biden Administration, through word and deed, has treated the armed forces as just another place to work. We must restore our military to a place of honor and respect and recruit and retain the individuals who will meet the rigorous standards of excellence that are required for membership in the world’s greatest fighting force. Needed Reforms l Rescue recruiting and retention. Recruiting was the worst in 2022 that it has been in two generations and is expected to be even worse in 2023. Some of the problems are self-inflicted and ongoing. The recruiting problem is not service-specific: It affects the entire Joint Force. 1. Appoint a Special Assistant to the President who will maintain liaison with Congress, DOD, and all other interested parties on the issue of recruiting and retention. 2. Improve recruiting by suspending the use of the recently introduced MHS Genesis system that uses private medical records of potential recruits at Military Entrance Processing Stations (MEPS), creating unnecessary delays and unwarranted rejections.11 3. Improve military recruiters’ access to secondary schools and require completion of the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery

Department of Homeland Security

Minimal

Vector: 54%

Pages: 174-176AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill addresses blood donation drives and community service, whereas the Project 2025 excerpt focuses on immigration enforcement, detention, and border security, with no substantive thematic overlap."

Key themes:no overlap

— 142 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Most of the foregoing can be accomplished rapidly and effectively through exec- utive action that is both lawful and appropriate. Additionally, ICE should clarify who is responsible for enforcing its criminal and civil authorities. It should also remove self-imposed limitations on its nationwide jurisdiction. l Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) Special Agents in the 1811 series should enforce Title 8 and 18 crimes as the biggest part of their portfolio. Alien smuggling, trafficking, and cross-border crime as defined under Title 85 and Title 186 should be the focus of ICE operations. l The role of ICE Deportation Officers should be clarified. ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) should be identified as being primarily responsible for enforcing civil immigration regulations, including the civil arrest, detention, and removal of immigration violators anywhere in the United States, without warrant where appropriate, subject only to the civil warrant requirements of the INA where appropriate. l All ICE memoranda identifying “sensitive zones” where ICE personnel are prohibited from operating should be rescinded. Rely on the good judgment of officers in the field to avoid inappropriate situations. l To maximize the efficient use of its resources, ICE should make full use of existing Expedited Removal (ER) authorities. The agency has limited the use of ER to eligible aliens apprehended within 100 miles of the border. This is not a statutory requirement. New Policies U.S. national security and public safety interests would be well-served if ICE were to be combined with CBP and USCIS, as mentioned above. Additionally, ICE/ HSI, along with CBP, should be full participants in the Intelligence Community. The use of Blackies Warrants should be operationalized within ICE. These civil search warrants are commonly used for worksite enforcement when agents have probable cause that illegal aliens are employed at a business. This would stream- line investigations. Safeguarding Americans will require not just securing the border, but con- tinuous vetting and investigations of many aliens who exploited President Biden’s open border for potentially nefarious purposes, including some Afghan evacuees sent directly to the U.S. during America’s disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan. — 143 — Department of Homeland Security Budget l Congress should mandate and fund additional bed space for alien detainees. ICE should be funded for a significant increase in detention space, raising the daily available number of beds to 100,000. l Congress should fund ICE for at least 20,000 ERO officers and 5,000 Office of the Principal Legal Advisor (OPLA) attorneys. U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES (USCIS) U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is the agency tasked with administering the legal immigration and certain temporary visa programs. Needed Reforms Since January 2021, USCIS’s priorities have been misaligned, and this has trans- formed it into an open-borders agency, ignoring the critical role that it plays in national security, public safety, and safeguarding the integrity of our immigration system. USCIS should be returned to operating as a screening and vetting agency. Regulatory efforts have focused on easing asylum eligibility in a manner that is guaranteed to exacerbate asylum fraud as people surge at the border. Emphasis also has been placed on removing legal barriers to immigration, such as the use of public benefits. These actions violate statutes, erode congressional intent, and provide a significant magnet for continued illegal immigration. Additionally, USCIS resources have been misappropriated to focus more on creating and expanding large-scale parole and temporary status programs that violate the law and are otherwise contrary to congressional intent instead of focus- ing on a more secure and efficient process for those who are seeking benefits. The ever-increasing number of applications filed has made it difficult to vet applica- tions adequately for eligibility, fraud, and specific national security and public safety problems. The Fraud Detection and National Security Directorate (FDNS) is currently a small directorate with assigned officers reporting through the chain of command in the field, and this has led to stovepiping, lack of coordination in national policy, and inconsistencies throughout the agency. To prioritize vetting and fraud detection, FDNS should undergo a structural shift focused on direct reporting from the field to headquarters, reclassification of leadership, and FDNS directives taking prece- dence over those of other component entities. Correcting the current misalignment of agency priorities and resources should begin with this primary shift in focus to vetting and fraud detection. These actions would reform the agency, returning it to its screening and vetting mission in protecting the homeland. Other structural changes should include reimplementation of the USCIS denat- uralization unit—an effort to maintain integrity in the system by identifying and

Department of Health and Human Services

Minimal

Vector: 54%

Pages: 530-532AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"SRES 41 authorizes quarterly blood donation drives, which is unrelated to the Project 2025 policy objective of withdrawing HHS OCR's HIPAA guidance on abortion; the two address distinct health topics with no substantive connection."

Key themes:public healthhealth policy

— 497 — Department of Health and Human Services l OCR should withdraw its Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)86 guidance on abortion. OCR should withdraw its June 2022 guidance87 that purports to address patient privacy concerns following the Dobbs decision but is actually a politicized statement in favor of abortion and against Dobbs. HIPAA covers patients in the womb, but this guidance treats them as nonpersons contrary to law. The guidance is unnecessary and contributes to ideologically motivated fearmongering about abortion after Dobbs. AUTHOR’S NOTE: The preparation of this chapter was a collective enterprise of selfless individuals involved in the 2025 Presidential Transition Project. All contributors to this chapter are listed at the front of this volume and include former officials in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and other agencies, as well as academics, attorneys, and experts in the health care and insurance fields. — 498 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise ENDNOTES 1. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Strategic Plan, FY 2018–2022, p. 50, https://aspe.hhs.gov/ sites/default/files/documents/feac346aca967bfadc446398679e14ec/hhs-strategic-plan-fy-2018-2022.pdf (accessed February 7, 2023). 2. “Strategic Goal 1: Protect and Strengthen Equitable Access to High Quality and Affordable Healthcare” in ibid. “In the context of HHS, this Strategic Plan adopts the definition of underserved communities listed in Executive Order 13985: Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities through the Federal Government to refer to ‘populations sharing a particular characteristic, as well as geographic communities, who have been systematically denied a full opportunity to participate in aspects of economic, social, and civic life’; this definition includes individuals who belong to underserved communities that have been denied such treatment, such as Black, Latino, and Indigenous and Native American persons, Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders and other persons of color; members of religious minorities; lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ+) persons; persons with disabilities; persons who live in rural areas; and persons otherwise adversely affected by persistent poverty or inequality. Individuals may belong to more than one underserved community and face intersecting barriers. This definition applies to the terms underserved communities and underserved populations throughout this Strategic Plan.” Ibid. Emphasis in original. 3. Karen Weintraub, “Americans’ Life Expectancy Continues to Fall, Erasing Health Gains of the Last Quarter Century,” USA Today, December 22, 2022, https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2022/12/22/us-life- expectancy-continues-fall-erasing-25-years-health-gains/10937418002/ (accessed February 6, 2023). 4. Apoorva Mandavilli, “The C.D.C. Isn’t Publishing Large Portions of the Data It Collects,” The New York Times, updated February 22, 2022, https://www.congress.gov/117/meeting/house/114450/documents/HHRG-117- IF02-20220302-SD004.pdf (accessed March 22, 2023). 5. Zachary B. Sluzala and Edmund F. Haislmaier, “Lessons from COVID-19: How Policymakers Should Reform the Regulation of Clinical Testing,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 3696, March 28, 2022, https://www. heritage.org/public-health/report/lessons-covid-19-how-policymakers-should-reform-the-regulation-clinical. 6. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (C),” https://www.cdc.gov/maso/pdf/cdcmiss.pdf (March 16, 2023). 7. Judith Garber, “CDC ‘Disclaimers’ Hide Financial Conflicts of Interest,” Lown Institute Accountability Blog, November 6, 2019, https://lowninstitute.org/cdc-disclaimers-hide-financial-conflicts-of-interest/ (accessed February 6, 2023). See also U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “CDC Foundation Active Programs (October 1, 2014–September 30, 2015),” https://www. cdcfoundation.org/sites/default/files/upload/pdf/CDCFoundation-ActivePrograms-FY2015.pdf (accessed February 7, 2023); “CDC Active Programs (October 1, 2015–September 30, 2016),” https://www.cdcfoundation. org/sites/default/files/upload/pdf/CDCFoundation-ActivePrograms-FY2016.pdf (accessed February 7, 2023); “CDC Foundation Active Programs (October 1, 2016–September 30, 2017),” https://www.cdcfoundation.org/ sites/default/files/upload/pdf/CDCFoundation-ActivePrograms-FY2017.pdf (accessed February 7, 2023); “CDC Foundation Active Programs (October 1, 2017–September 30, 2018),” https://www.cdcfoundation.org/sites/default/ files/upload/pdf/CDCFoundation-ActivePrograms-FY2018.pdf (accessed February 7, 2023); “CDC Foundation Active Programs, October 1, 2018–September 30, 2019,” https://www.cdcfoundation.org/sites/default/files/upload/ pdf/CDCFoundation-ActivePrograms-FY2019.pdf (accessed February 7, 2023); “CDC Foundation Active Programs, October 1, 2029–September 30, 2020,” https://www.cdcfoundation.org/CDCF-ActivePrograms-CDC-FY20?inline (accessed February 7, 2023); and “CDC Foundation Active Programs, October 1, 2020–September 30, 2021,” https://www.cdcfoundation.org/CDCF-ActivePrograms-CDC-FY21?inline (accessed February 7, 2023). 8. Joel White and Doug Badger, “In Order to Defeat COVID-19, the Federal Government Must Modernize Its Public Health Data,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 3527, September 3, 2020, https://www.heritage. org/sites/default/files/2020-09/BG3527_0.pdf. 9. S. 15, Ensuring Accurate and Complete Abortion Data Reporting Act of 2023, 118th Congress, introduced January 23, 2023, https://www.congress.gov/118/bills/s15/BILLS-118s15is.pdf (accessed March 22, 2023), and H.R. 632, Ensuring Accurate and Complete Abortion Data Reporting Act of 2023, 118th Congress, introduced January 30, 2023, https://www.congress.gov/118/bills/hr632/BILLS-118hr632ih.pdf (accessed March 22, 2023). 10. Doug Badger, “How Congress Can Make Real Progress on Drug Prices,” Heritage Foundation Issue Brief No. 5016, December 9, 2019, https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/2019-12/IB5016_1.pdf.

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. McConnell, Mitch

Mammoth Cave National Park Boundary Adjustment Act of 2025

119/s/1674

A bill to amend chapters 83 and 84 of title 5, United States Code, to authorize an increase of the retirement age for members of the Capitol Police.

119/s/4530

Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2026

119/s/2572

Back to All Bills