Utah Wildfire Research Institute Act of 2025

Download PDF
Bill ID: 119/hr/1045
Last Updated: September 7, 2026

Sponsored by

Rep. Kennedy, Mike [R-UT-3]

ID: K000403

Follow the money

The bill

Utah Wildfire Research Institute Act of 2025

HR. 1045, 119th Congress.

The sponsor

Rep. Kennedy, Mike [R-UT-3]

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

The money

$157,510 raised

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

The alignment

85% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Department of Agriculture" section, p. 341-343 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

December 15, 2025

Introduced

Committee Review

Floor Action

Passed House

Senate Review

📍 Current Status

Next: Both chambers must agree on the same version of the bill.

🎉

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

(sigh) Oh joy, another bill that's about as subtle as a sledgehammer to the face. Let me put on my surgical gloves and dissect this mess.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** (rolls eyes) The Utah Wildfire Research Institute Act of 2025 is a masterclass in legislative doublespeak. Its stated purpose is to "amend" the Southwest Forest Health and Wildfire Prevention Act of 2004 by adding an additional institute... in Utah. Wow, how original. I'm sure it has nothing to do with pork-barrel politics or lining the pockets of Utah's congressional delegation.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** (heavy sarcasm) Oh boy, this is a real game-changer. The bill adds Utah to the list of states eligible for funding under the Southwest Forest Health and Wildfire Prevention Act. I'm sure it was just an oversight that Utah wasn't included in the original bill... or maybe it's just a coincidence that Utah has a few influential politicians who want some extra cash.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** (disdainfully) The usual suspects: Utah's congressional delegation, local politicians, and probably some well-connected "experts" who'll get to run this new institute. And of course, the taxpayers, who'll foot the bill for this boondoggle.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** (cynical chuckle) Let me put on my surprised face... This bill will likely result in a few million dollars being thrown at some vague "research" project that might – just might – produce some marginally useful findings. Meanwhile, the real impact will be felt by Utah's politicians, who'll get to tout this as a "major victory" for their constituents, and the lobbyists who helped grease the wheels.

Diagnosis: This bill is suffering from a severe case of "Pork-Barrel-itis," a disease characterized by an excessive desire for federal funding and a complete disregard for actual policy substance. Symptoms include vague language, unnecessary amendments, and a healthy dose of self-serving politics. Treatment involves a strong dose of skepticism, a thorough examination of the bill's true motivations, and a healthy dose of ridicule.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have better things to do than analyze this legislative garbage. Next patient, please!

Related Topics

Public Lands & Natural Resources
Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Kennedy, Mike [R-UT-3]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions
$157,510
20 donors
PACs
$0
Organizations
$0
Committees
$0
Individuals
$157,510

No PAC contributions found

No organization contributions found

No committee contributions found

1
ULRICH, DAVE
1 transaction
$10,000
2
BRENCHLEY, ROXANE
1 transaction
$9,900
3
BRENCHLEY, SHAWN
1 transaction
$9,900
4
JOHNSON, HEATHER
1 transaction
$9,900
5
JOHNSON, JOHN
1 transaction
$9,900
6
KENNEDY, HUGH
1 transaction
$9,900
7
KENNEDY, JACOB
1 transaction
$9,900
8
ULANOFF, DORY
1 transaction
$9,900
9
ZUPANCICH, ANTHONY
1 transaction
$9,900
10
PLUMB, WALTER III
1 transaction
$6,700
11
HEMMERT, DANIEL
1 transaction
$6,600
12
REAGAN, WILLIAM K
1 transaction
$6,600
13
SHURTZ, LINCOLN
1 transaction
$6,600
14
DURSTELER, BLAKE E
1 transaction
$6,600
15
CONLEE, ROBERT
1 transaction
$6,600
16
PETERSON, JAMIE
1 transaction
$6,600
17
PETERSON, TROY
1 transaction
$6,600
18
HAFEN, MARK
1 transaction
$5,205
19
SHEFFER, CLAY
1 transaction
$5,205
20
VON BATTEN, KARL
1 transaction
$5,000

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 3 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Rep. Owens, Burgess [R-UT-4]

ID: O000086

Top Contributors

22

1
UTE INDIAN TRIBE
OrganizationFORT DUCHESNE, UT
$3,300
Nov 12, 2024
2
MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationBANNING, CA
$2,000
Sep 30, 2024
3
PALMER, JEFFERY
NONE • RETIRED
IndividualMAPLETON, UT
$13,200
May 29, 2023
4
JENKINS, JAMES W.
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualSALT LAKE CITY, UT
$10,000
May 13, 2024
5
HOLSCHER, KELLY
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualPACIFIC PALISADES, CA
$6,600
Aug 22, 2024
6
LISONBEE, DAVID
4LIFE RESEARCH • BUSINESS OWNER
IndividualPROVO, UT
$6,600
Mar 19, 2024
7
OVERHOLT, DAVID W. MR.
UNIFIED PURCHASING GROUP • PRESIDENT
IndividualSOUTH JORDAN, UT
$6,600
Apr 3, 2024
8
DAICHENDT, JOE
ACI JET • BUSINESS OWNER
IndividualLADERA RANCH, CA
$6,600
Mar 16, 2023
9
GRIFFIN, KENNETH
CITADEL LLC • FOUNDER CEO
IndividualMIAMI BEACH, FL
$6,600
Apr 10, 2023
10
PALMER, KELLY
NONE • RETIRED
IndividualMAPLETON, UT
$6,600
Jun 13, 2023

Rep. Moore, Blake D. [R-UT-1]

ID: M001213

Top Contributors

24

1
JLS HOLDINGS LLC
OrganizationSALT LAKE CITY, UT
$9,900
Jul 13, 2023
2
THE CHICKASAW NATION
OrganizationADA, OK
$3,300
May 16, 2024
3
HEMMCO LLC
OrganizationOREM, UT
$2,500
Sep 15, 2023
4
R & O CONSTRUCTION
OrganizationOGDEN, UT
$2,500
Sep 13, 2023
5
PARKER, ALEXANDRA
APERCEN PARTNERS, LLC
IndividualPALO ALTO, CA
$6,600
Sep 20, 2024
6
PARKER, SEAN
APERCEN PARTNERS, LLC
IndividualPALO ALTO, CA
$6,600
Sep 20, 2024
7
KAUFMAN, TRENT
MGT • EXECUTIVE
IndividualHOLLADAY, UT
$6,600
Sep 9, 2024
8
MOORE, BRENT
SOLTIS ADVISORS • PARTNER
IndividualSALT LAKE CITY, UT
$6,000
Sep 26, 2024
9
MOORE, BRENT
SOLTIS ADVISORS • PARTNER
IndividualSALT LAKE CITY, UT
$6,000
Sep 26, 2024
10
CHANG, JASON
IndividualMENLO PARK, CA
$3,300
Oct 30, 2024

Rep. Maloy, Celeste [R-UT-2]

ID: M001228

Top Contributors

22

1
THE UTE INDIAN TRIBE
OrganizationFORT DUCHESNE, UT
$3,300
Nov 9, 2024
2
THE UTE INDIAN TRIBE
OrganizationFORT DUCHESNE, UT
$3,300
Nov 9, 2024
3
HOLT, CLIFF
HURRICANE FAMILY PHARMACY • OWNER
IndividualHURRICANE, UT
$3,300
Oct 17, 2024
4
RICKETTS, MARLENE
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualOMAHA, NE
$3,300
Oct 24, 2024
5
IPSON, DON L.
N/A • RETIRED
IndividualSAINT GEORGE, UT
$3,300
Dec 27, 2023
6
MCMAHON, LINDA E.
MCMAHON VENTURES • EXECUTIVE
IndividualGREENWICH, CT
$3,300
Dec 15, 2023
7
SCHWAB, CHARLES
CHARLES SCHWAB CORPORATION • CHAIRMAN
IndividualPALM BEACH, FL
$3,300
Dec 19, 2023
8
ARNOLD, JOHN
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualHOUSTON, TX
$3,300
Mar 26, 2024
9
BURGESS, BRETT
DEVELOPMENT SOLUTIONS GROUP, INC. • PRESIDENT
IndividualSAINT GEORGE, UT
$3,300
Mar 29, 2024
10
DEATON, TYLER
ALLEGIANCE STRATEGIES, LLC • PRESIDENT
IndividualCALHOUN, GA
$3,300
Mar 20, 2024

Donor Network - Rep. Kennedy, Mike [R-UT-3]

PACs
Organizations
Individuals
Politicians

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

Loading...

Showing 28 nodes and 32 connections

Total contributions: $32

Top Donors - Rep. Kennedy, Mike [R-UT-3]

Showing top 20 donors by contribution amount

20 Individuals

Project 2025 Policy Matches

This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.AI-enhanced analysis provides detailed alignment ratings.

Department of Agriculture

Strong
Vector: 61%
Pages: 341-343AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 1045 establishes a wildfire research institute in Utah, directly supporting the Project 2025 goal of reforming Forest Service wildfire management through enhanced research, prevention, and mitigation efforts that align with proactive vegetation management and fuel reduction objectives."

Key themes:wildfire managementforest healthproactive mitigationresearch collaborationfuel reduction

— 308 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Reform Forest Service Wildfire Management. The United States Forest Service is one of four federal government land management agencies that admin- ister 606 million acres, or 95 percent of the 640 million acres of surface land area managed by the federal government.115 Located within the USDA, the Forest Service manages the National Forest System, which is comprised of 193 million acres.116 As explained by the USDA, “The USDA Forest Service’s mission is to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the nation’s forests and grasslands to meet the needs of present and future generations.”117 The Forest Service should focus on proactive management of the forests and grasslands that does not depend heavily on burning. There should be resilient forests and grasslands in the wake of management actions. Wildfires have become a primary vegetation management regime for national forests and grasslands.118 Recognizing the need for vegetation management, the Forest Service has adopted “pyro-silviculture” using “unplanned” fire,119 such as unplanned human-caused fires, to otherwise accomplish vegetation management.120 The Forest Service should instead be focusing on addressing the precipitous annual amassing of biomass in the national forests that drive the behavior of wildfires. By thinning trees, removing live fuels and deadwood, and taking other preventive steps, the Forest Service can help to minimize the consequences of wildfires. Increasing timber sales could also play an important role in the effort to change the behavior of wildfire because there would be less biomass. Timber sales and timber harvested in public forests dropped precipitously in the early 1990s and still remain very low. For example, in 1988, the volume of timber sold and harvested by volume was about 11 billion and 12.6 billion board feet (BBF), respectively.121 In 2021, timber sold was 2.8 BBF and timber harvested was 2.4 BBF. In 2018, President Donald Trump issued Executive Order 13855 to, among other things, promote active management of forests and reduce wildfire risks.122 The executive order stated, “Active management of vegetation is needed to treat these dangerous conditions on Federal lands but is often delayed due to challenges associated with regulatory analysis and current consultation requirements.”123 It further explained the need to reduce regulatory obstacles to fuel reduction in forests created by the National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act.124 The next Administration should: l Champion executive action, consistent with law, and proactive legislation to reduce wildfires. This would involve embracing Executive Order 13855, building upon it, and working with lawmakers to promote active management of vegetation, reduce regulatory obstacles to reducing fuel buildup, and increase timber sales. — 309 — Department of Agriculture Eliminate or Reform the Dietary Guidelines. The USDA, in collaboration with HHS, publishes the Dietary Guidelines every five years.125 For more than 40 years, the federal government has been releasing Dietary Guidelines,126 and during this time, there has been constant controversy due to questionable recommenda- tions and claims regarding the politicization of the process. In the 2015 Dietary Guidelines process, the influential Dietary Guidelines Advi- sory Committee veered off mission and attempted to persuade the USDA and HHS to adopt nutritional advice that focused not just on human health, but the health of the planet.127 Issues such as climate change and sustainability infiltrated the process. Fortunately, the 2020 process did not get diverted in this manner. How- ever, the Dietary Guidelines remain a potential tool to influence dietary choices to achieve objectives unrelated to the nutritional and dietary well-being of Americans. There is no shortage of private sector dietary advice for the public, and nutrition and dietary choices are best left to individuals to address their personal needs. This includes working with their own health professionals. As it is, there is constantly changing advice provided by the government, with insufficient qualifications on the advice, oversimplification to the point of miscommunicating important points, questionable use of science, and potential political influence. The Dietary Guidelines have a major impact because they not only can influence how private health providers offer nutritional advice, but they also inform federal programs. School meals are required to be consistent with the guidelines.128 The next Administration should: l Work with lawmakers to repeal the Dietary Guidelines. The USDA should help lead an effort to repeal the Dietary Guidelines. l Minimally, the next Administration should reform the Dietary Guidelines. The USDA, with HHS, should develop a more transparent process that properly considers the underlying science and does not overstate its findings. It should also ensure that the Dietary Guidelines focus on nutritional issues and do not veer off-mission by focusing on unrelated issues, such as the environment, that have nothing to do with nutritional advice. In fact, if environmental concerns supersede or water down recommendations for human nutritional advice, the public would be receiving misleading health information. The USDA, working with lawmakers, should codify these reforms into law. ORGANIZATIONAL ISSUES Based on the recommended reforms identified as ideal solutions, the USDA would look different in many respects. One of the biggest changes would be a USDA that is not focused on welfare, given that means-tested welfare programs would

Department of Housing and Urban Development

Minimal
Vector: 64%
Pages: 548-550AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on establishing a wildfire research institute in Utah and does not address housing policy, homelessness, or HUD's Housing First directives, resulting in no meaningful alignment with the Project 2025 HUD objective."

— 516 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 37. HUD should implement administrative changes in regulation and guidance and seek statutory authority to end all Housing First directives of Continuum of Care (CoC) grantees and contract homelessness providers in addition to establishing restrictions on local Housing First policies where HUD grant funds are used. 38. The U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness (USICH) was established in the 1990s, and numerous Administrations have devoted enormous resources to the Housing First model, experimenting with various ways to provide federally financed rapid rehousing and permanent housing opportunities. Housing First is a far-left idea premised on the belief that homelessness is primarily circumstantial rather than behavioral. The Housing First answer to homelessness is to give someone a house instead of attempting to understand the underlying causes of homelessness. Federal intervention centered on Housing First has failed to acknowledge that resolving the issue of homelessness is often a matter of resolving mental health and substance abuse challenges. Instead of the permanent supportive housing proffered by Housing First, a conservative Administration should shift to transitional housing with a focus on addressing the underlying issues that cause homelessness in the first place. 39. The Senate Low-Income First-Time Homebuyers (LIFT) Act would address this policy goal. See S. 2797, Low-Income First-Time Homebuyers Act of 2021 (LIFT Homebuyers Act of 2021), 117th Congress, introduced September 22, 2021, https://www.congress.gov/117/bills/s2797/BILLS-117s2797is.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023). 40. FHA did not facilitate the widespread use of 30-year mortgages until the 1950s when, interacting with Federal Reserve policies, federal agencies began broader adoption of the mortgages, which, despite lowering the monthly repayment terms, result in slow equity accumulation and wealth-building opportunities. 41. The Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 fundamentally revised the scope of federal regulation in the nation’s housing finance system, placing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac under the purview of a newly established Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) and establishing a Housing Trust Fund (HTF) that is administered in the HUD Office of Community Planning and Development. See H.R. 3221, Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008, Public Law No. 110-289, 110th Congress, July 30, 2008, https://www.congress. gov/110/plaws/publ289/PLAW-110publ289.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023). 42. Guiding questions: What reforms should be proposed that could be accomplished within five years? What reforms can be done administratively, and what reforms would need legislative authorization? Are there functions that HUD administers that could be achieved more effectively at another department or agency? What big-picture reforms should be proposed that might take more than five years that would reorganize HUD and its programs to meet the objectives in the vision or mission? What would occur in the absence of these public finance subsidies? How much crowd-out do these subsidies create in the market? Would America be a seriously underhoused nation without these subsidies? Who are the policies intended to benefit? What organizational changes must be made? 43. The Faircloth Amendment (Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998) amended the Housing Act of 1937 to maintain public housing units at 1999 levels, preventing housing authorities from maintaining more public housing than they did then. H.R. 4194, Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999, Public Law No. 105-276, 105th Congress, October 21, 1998, Title V, https://www.congress.gov/105/plaws/publ276/PLAW-105publ276.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023). In recent years, the statutory restriction on new construction of public housing units has been circumvented through some narrow uses of preservation programs such as the Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD) program, initially authorized in 2012 and reauthorized several times since under higher program unit conversion caps. Congress also provided paths for renewal and continuation of a portion of existing public housing; project/site-based housing stock (refinancing with long-term HAP contract commitments); and Section 8 units through the Multifamily Assisted Housing Reform and Affordability Act of 1997 (MAHRA). H.R. 2158, Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 1998, Public Law No. 105-65, 105th Congress, October 27, 1997, Title V, https://www.congress.gov/105/plaws/publ65/PLAW-105publ65.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023). 44. As the evolution of HUD rental assistance transitions away from the public housing model toward housing choice vouchers, there should be adequate landlord participation to ensure that the supply of housing units for rent in these programs meets the demand for rent among eligible tenants. This issue has been addressed in various ways, including by a task force instituted at the department during the Trump Administration, but could likely remain a challenge in the administration of the program. — 517 — 16 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR William Perry Pendley The U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) oversees, manages, and protects the nation’s natural resources and cultural heritage; provides scientific and other information about those resources; and honors the nation’s trust responsibilities or special commitments to American Indians, Alaska Natives, and affiliated island communities. AGENCY OVERVIEW DOI’s purview encompasses more than 500 million acres of federal lands, including national parks and national wildlife refuges; 700 million acres of sub- surface minerals; 1.7 billion acres of the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS); 23 percent of the nation’s energy; water in 17 western states; and trust responsibilities for 566 Indian tribes and Alaska Natives. DOI’s 2024 budget request totals $18.9 billion, an increase of $2 billion, or 12 percent, more than the 2023 enacted level. The budget also provides an estimated $12.6 billion in permanent funding in 2024. In 2024, DOI will generate receipts of $19.6 billion. A “Home Department” had been considered in 1789 and urged by Presidents over the decades until DOI’s creation in 1849. The variety of its early responsibil- ities—the Indian Bureau, the General Land Office, the Bureau of Pensions, and the Patent Office, among others—earned it various nicknames, including “Great Miscellany,” “hydra-headed monster,” and “Mother of Departments.”1 Its mission became more focused on natural resources with the rise of the conservation move- ment in the early 20th century; however, it kept its historic (since the days of the Founding Fathers) role as overseer of vast working landscapes involving grazing,

Department of Health and Human Services

Minimal
Vector: 60%
Pages: 533-535AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 1045 focuses on establishing a wildfire research institute in Utah to improve wildfire prevention and mitigation, which is unrelated to the Department of Health and Human Services policies outlined in the Project 2025 excerpt, such as Medicaid reform, abortion policy, or healthcare transparency. There is no thematic or policy overlap between wildfire research and the HHS-specific objectives detailed in the provided text."

— 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).

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.

Full Policy Text

Related Bills