University of Utah Research Park Act

Download PDF
Bill ID: 119/hr/2876
Last Updated: July 12, 2026

Sponsored by

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

ID: M001213

Follow the money

The bill

University of Utah Research Park Act

HR. 2876, 119th Congress — read as touching Real Estate.

The sponsor

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

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

The money

$99,500 raised

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

The alignment

55% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Department of Housing and Urban Development" section, p. 545-547 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.

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

Another case of legislative lunacy. Let's dissect this farce, shall we?

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The University of Utah Research Park Act (HR 2876) is a masterclass in bureaucratic doublespeak. The bill claims to "confirm the use of certain non-Federal land" for public purposes, but don't be fooled – it's just a fancy way of saying "we're going to let the University of Utah do whatever they want with this land." The real objective? To rubber-stamp a decades-old agreement and give the university carte blanche to develop the land as they see fit.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill confirms the use of approximately 593.54 acres of non-Federal land in Salt Lake City, Utah, for "valid public purposes" – a phrase so vague it might as well be a blank check. The University of Utah can now develop the land for research park purposes, student housing, and a transit hub, all under the guise of "public purposes." It's a classic case of legislative sleight-of-hand.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The obvious beneficiaries are the University of Utah and its cronies in the development industry. They get to reap the benefits of prime real estate without having to go through the hassle of actual public oversight. The taxpayers, on the other hand, will likely foot the bill for any "public purposes" that magically appear on this land.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a textbook example of crony capitalism and bureaucratic overreach. By confirming the university's use of the land without meaningful oversight, Congress is essentially greenlighting a sweetheart deal that benefits a select few at the expense of the public interest. Expect more of the same old backroom deals and sweetheart arrangements to follow.

Diagnosis: This bill suffers from a severe case of "crony-itis," a disease characterized by an excessive reliance on special interests and a complete disregard for transparency and accountability. The prognosis? More of the same corrupt, self-serving politics that have come to define our legislative process.

Treatment: A healthy dose of skepticism, a strong stomach, and a willingness to call out the obvious lies and corruption that permeate this bill. But let's be real – in today's political climate, that's about as likely as a politician keeping their campaign promises.

Related Topics

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

💰 Campaign Finance Network

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

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions
$99,500
21 donors
PACs
$0
Organizations
$18,200
Committees
$0
Individuals
$81,300

No PAC contributions found

1
JLS HOLDINGS LLC
1 transaction
$9,900
2
THE CHICKASAW NATION
1 transaction
$3,300
3
HEMMCO LLC
1 transaction
$2,500
4
R & O CONSTRUCTION
1 transaction
$2,500

No committee contributions found

1
MOORE, BRENT
2 transactions
$12,000
2
LOCKWOOD, DAVID
3 transactions
$9,900
3
PARKER, ALEXANDRA
1 transaction
$6,600
4
PARKER, SEAN
1 transaction
$6,600
5
KAUFMAN, TRENT
1 transaction
$6,600
6
CHANG, JASON
1 transaction
$3,300
7
REHNERT, GEOFFREY
1 transaction
$3,300
8
HALL, JEREMY
1 transaction
$3,300
9
FORREST, CHAD B
1 transaction
$3,300
10
WALKER, TODD
1 transaction
$3,300
11
BAILEY, BRETT M.
1 transaction
$3,300
12
BAILEY, KIM
1 transaction
$3,300
13
FORREST, SHANNON
1 transaction
$3,300
14
DUHAMEL, WILLIAM F.
1 transaction
$3,300
15
SMITH, BURR
1 transaction
$3,300
16
EDWARDS, TAMMY
1 transaction
$3,300
17
FORREST, CLINT
1 transaction
$3,300

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

10

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. Kennedy, Mike [R-UT-3]

ID: K000403

Top Contributors

10

1
ULRICH, DAVE
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN • PROFESSOR
IndividualALPINE, UT
$10,000
Jun 5, 2024
2
BRENCHLEY, ROXANE
HOMEMAKER • HOMEMAKER
IndividualALPINE, UT
$9,900
Jan 12, 2024
3
BRENCHLEY, SHAWN
VIVINT • VP
IndividualALPINE, UT
$9,900
Jan 12, 2024
4
JOHNSON, HEATHER
SELF • HOMEMAKER
IndividualOGDEN, UT
$9,900
Jan 12, 2024
5
JOHNSON, JOHN
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualOGDEN, UT
$9,900
Jan 12, 2024
6
KENNEDY, HUGH
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualYPSILANTI, MI
$9,900
Jan 12, 2024
7
KENNEDY, JACOB
DEACONESS HOSPITAL • DOCTOR
IndividualEVANSVILLE, IN
$9,900
Mar 15, 2024
8
ULANOFF, DORY
ARCADIS • MARKETING
IndividualYPSILANTI, MI
$9,900
Jan 12, 2024
9
ZUPANCICH, ANTHONY
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualSAINT CLAIR SHORES, MI
$9,900
Mar 27, 2024
10
PLUMB, WALTER III
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualSALT LAKE CITY, UT
$6,700
Jan 12, 2024

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

ID: M001228

Top Contributors

10

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

PACs
Organizations
Individuals
Politicians

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

Loading...

Showing 53 nodes and 33 connections (46 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $157,700

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

Showing top 21 donors by contribution amount

4 Orgs17 Individuals

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 1 helped.

  • +Real Estateconfidence 0.70

    Section 2 describes the land conveyed to the University of Utah for development, including student housing and a transit hub, which benefits the real estate industry (SEC. 2. CONFIRMATION OF USE OF CERTAIN NON-FEDERAL LAND IN SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, FOR VALID PUBLIC PURPOSES).

Who funds the sponsor on these industries

For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Rep. Moore, Blake D. [R-UT-1])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

  • from 2 contributions
    • WACLAWSKI, JONATHAN$500
    • HARTNETT, GAIL$500

Project 2025 Policy Matches

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

Department of Housing and Urban Development

Weak
Vector: 59%
Pages: 545-547AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill primarily confirms land use for a university research park and permits student housing and a transit hub, whereas the Project 2025 HUD section focuses on internal agency reforms, competence gaps, and waste/fraud/abuse reduction. Only the tangential mention of student housing connects to HUD's housing mission, resulting in weak alignment."

Key themes:student housingland usepublic purpose

— 513 — Department of Housing and Urban Development ENDNOTES 1. At a 1998 Senate hearing, then-HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo acknowledged that the department “faced a competence gap” and had “the dubious distinction of being the only federal agency designated as ‘high risk’ by the General Accounting [now Government Accountability] Office (GAO),” even referencing the Section 8 rental subsidy as “on the brink of becoming the next savings and loan scandal,” and explained how the department was stepping up enforcement efforts “focused on closing the competence gap by eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse.” See “Testimony of Secretary Andrew Cuomo before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies,” March 25, 1998, https://archives.hud.gov/ testimony/1998/tst32598.cfm (accessed March 4, 2023). 2. H.R. 7984, Housing and Urban Development Act of 1965, Public Law No. 89-117, 89th Congress, August 10, 1965, https://www.congress.gov/89/statute/STATUTE-79/STATUTE-79-Pg451.pdf (accessed March 4, 2023). 3. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2023 Budget in Brief, pp. 2 and 7, https://www.hud.gov/ sites/dfiles/CFO/documents/2023_BudgetInBriefFINAL.pdf (accessed March 4, 2023). 4. For example, the Special Applications Center (SAC) located in Chicago, Illinois, was established in 1998 as a division of the Office of Public and Indian Housing to accept, review, and approve all nonfunded, noncompetitive applications and plans for demolition, disposition, and conversion of land subject to an annual contributions contract (ACC) in public housing. 5. The Secretary has delegated full authority for the Administration and enforcement of the Fair Housing Act to the Assistant Secretary of the Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity but also has delegated limited assignment and decision-making authority to the General Counsel. 6. Effectively the HUD Chief Operating Officer and appointed by the President with Senate advice and consent. 7. The Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) is an independent adjudicatory office within the Office of the Secretary. Led by a Director who is appointed by the Secretary, it supervises the Administrative Judges of the Office of Appeals, the administrative law judges of the Office of Administrative Law Judges, and the OHA support staff. The HUD Secretary appoints administrative judges and administrative law judges in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. Chapter 5, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/part-I/ chapter-5 (accessed March 4, 2023). 8. HUD currently has a Departmental Equity Assessment Working Group, supported with five FTEs funded by the OSDBU, “as part of the President’s Executive Order 13985, Executive Order On Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government.” See U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2023 Congressional Justifications, p. 35-15, https://www.hud.gov/sites/ dfiles/CFO/documents/2023HUDCongressionalJustificationsFINALelectronicversion.pdf (accessed March 4, 2023), and President Joseph R. Biden Jr., Executive Order 13985, “Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government,” January 20, 2021, in Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 14 (January 25, 2021), pp. 7009–7013, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2021-01-25/pdf/2021- 01753.pdf (accessed March 4, 2023). 9. Interestingly, “[t]he 2023 President’s Budget requests $748 thousand for CFBNP, which is $436 thousand less than the 2022 Annualized CR level. The Budget reflects total funding (carryover and new authority) of $1.2 million, $448 thousand less than 2022 total funding.” U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2023 Congressional Justifications, p. 35-16. 10. See H.R. 558, Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act, Public Law No. 100-77, 100th Congress, July 22, 1987, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-101/pdf/STATUTE-101-Pg482.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023). Later renamed the McKinney–Vento Homeless Assistance Act. 11. Established under the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, 42 U.S.C. §§ 5301 et seq., https:// www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42 (accessed March 4, 2023). 12. S. 566, Cranston–Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act, Public Law No. 101-625, 101st Congress, November 28, 1990, Title II, https://www.congress.gov/101/statute/STATUTE-104/STATUTE-104-Pg4079.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023). 13. S. 1, Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Public Law No. 91-646, 91st Congress, January 2, 1971, https://www.congress.gov/91/statute/STATUTE-84/STATUTE-84-Pg1894.pdf (accessed March 4, 2023). “The URA establishes the minimum Federal requirements for the acquisition of real property for Federally-funded programs and projects, and for the relocation of persons who must move from — 514 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise their homes, businesses, or farms as a direct result of acquisition, rehabilitation, or demolition for a Federally- funded program or project.” U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, HUD Exchange, “49 CFR Part 24–URA Regulations,” published February 2005, https://www.hudexchange.info/resource/804/ura-and- real-property-acquisition-policies-act-49-cfr-part-24/ (accessed March 4, 2023). HUD is one of the 18 federal departments and agencies that “are subject to the Uniform Act.” U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, “Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition for Federal and Federally Assisted Programs,” Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 243 (December 18, 2019), pp. 69466–69521, esp. p. 69484, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-12-18/pdf/2019-25558.pdf (accessed March 4, 2023). 14. H.R. 3219, Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996, Public Law No. 104-330, 104th Congress, October 26, 1996, https://www.congress.gov/104/plaws/publ330/PLAW-104publ330.pdf (accessed March 4, 2023). 15. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2023 Congressional Justifications, p. 6-1. The U.S. Housing Act of 1937 (Wagner–Steagall Act) established the origins of locally chartered housing agencies that administer federal funding for various rental assistance programs—a quintessentially progressive New Deal–era policy that expanded the administrative state’s powers to the housing market—with the primary legislative intent of eradicating slum housing in urban areas, boosting jobs, and providing housing for the working poor. 42 U.S.C. §§ 1437 et seq., https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42 (accessed March 4, 2023). A decade later, the Housing Act of 1949 codified federal standards for housing livability—a rationale that HUD and federal legislators have continued to use to justify federal intervention in housing—establishing as a national policy objective the provision of a minimum standard of housing quality for all Americans. This legislation also statutorily established many of the rural housing programs that are administered at USDA and expanded programs facilitating the removal of slum housing in urban areas. 42 U.S.C. §§ 1441 et seq., https:// www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42 (accessed March 4, 2023). 16. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2023 Congressional Justifications, pp. 1-2 and 2-2. 17. The National Housing Act of 1934 established the FHA and the statutory authority for the secondary market. The main stated premise was to stimulate jobs and facilitate the housing and construction sector during the Great Depression. 42 U.S.C. §§ 1701 et seq., https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12 (accessed March 4, 2023). 18. 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000d et seq., https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42 (accessed March 4, 2023). 19. 29 U.S.C. §§ 701 et seq., https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/29 (accessed March 4, 2023). 20. HUD’s Departmental Enforcement Center (DEC) is led by a Director. It was established in 1998 as part of a broader effort to streamline and consolidate functions at HUD and was later merged with the Office of General Counsel. The DEC “is comprised of the Office of the Director, the Compliance Division, the Operations Division and five Satellite Offices” and describes its mission as “assuring the highest standards of ethics, management and accountability in the resolution of HUD's troubled properties.” U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Departmental Enforcement Center, “Program Offices: Departmental Enforcement Center,” https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/enforcement (accessed March 4, 2023). 21. H.R. 5334, Housing and Community Development Act of 1992, Public Law No. 102-1017, 102nd Congress, October 28, 1992, Title X, https://www.congress.gov/102/statute/STATUTE-106/STATUTE-106-Pg3672.pdf (accessed March 4, 2023). 22. H.R. 8588, Inspector General Act of 1978, Public Law No. 95-452, 95th Congress, October 12, 1978, https://www. congress.gov/95/statute/STATUTE-92/STATUTE-92-Pg1101.pdf (accessed March 4, 2023). 23. Guiding questions: What immediate administrative reforms of HUD and its programs can be made with high probability of success? What short-term legislative reforms can be proposed that, in tandem with administrative reforms, would achieve the HUD vision/mission objective? What HUD offices should be eliminated and/or realigned to reduce any redundancy that may persist in programmatic functions? 24. Wholly aside from reforms that would require legislation, the next Administration must ensure that key political appointees are able to acquit themselves as change agents to execute administrative reforms. Otherwise, whether because of a sheer lack of skill and expertise or simply a lack of will and philosophical alignment with reforms, staff may frustrate the efforts of committed political appointee staff and leadership to execute substantive administrative reforms. To achieve the policy and regulatory reforms outlined in this chapter, political appointees must be carefully placed in positions that reflect not only technical, market/ industry, and operational expertise, but also a shared will and commitment.

Department of Housing and Urban Development

Weak
Vector: 57%
Pages: 548-550AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill concerns confirming land use for a university research park, including student housing, while the Project 2025 HUD section focuses on ending Housing First policies and promoting transitional housing for homeless populations. The only overlap is the general topic of housing and federal agency involvement, but the objectives and target populations differ substantially."

Key themes:housingfederal agency oversightland use

— 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 Energy and Related Commissions

Weak
Vector: 57%
Pages: 425-427AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill primarily confirms land use for a university research park and related amenities, which may foster innovation but does not directly address DOE R&D funding, technology transfer to American businesses, or the national security‑focused objectives outlined in Project 2025."

Key themes:research and developmentinnovationtechnology transfereconomic growthpublic-private partnership

— 393 — Department of Energy and Related Commissions l Ensure that R&D funds are used for projects that protect and advance that edge. l Ensure that successful advances, with a focus on new natural resource development technologies, artificial intelligence, cybersecurity, and space, are transferred swiftly to American interests in the private sector. New Policies l Focus on benefits to Americans. OTT’s operations should be based on the recognition that the new technologies generated by American taxpayers’ investment in DOE are a significant national security asset rather than some neutral scientific gift to humanity. l Increase oversight and coordination. OTT needs to be vigilant in overseeing and coordinating OTT offices associated with each National Lab. For security and economic espionage reasons, the work funded by the American people needs to be protected, and when commercialized, it needs to go to American businesses. OFFICE OF SCIENCE (SC) Mission/Overview The Office of Science (SC) supports and oversees research facilities and pro- grams that cover basic science through its application to the demonstration and deployment of energy technologies. SC oversees 10 of the 17 DOE National Labs and 28 major federal research user facilities. Its mission is to preserve U.S. leader- ship in science, fund and perform basic research, and provide the scientific facilities that the private sector is unable or unwilling to provide. New initiatives include quantum information sciences and artificial intelligence. SC is led by a Senate-con- firmed Director at the Assistant Secretary level and has eight program offices.82 Needed Reforms The next conservative President should commit the United States to scientific dominance to support national and economic security, especially in light of similar efforts by China. To aid in this effort, the Office of Science should: l Return to its primary mission: nonpartisan and basic science. SC’s mission should be international leadership in basic and early applied science and provision of world-leading facilities for this work. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and Inflation Reduction Act mark the major — 394 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise reorientation of DOE primarily from defense applications in the NNSA and basic and early applied science across SC and the applied offices to a massive federal research, development, demonstration, and commercialization body.83 Distraction from SC’s basic science mission should be prevented. l Increase the level of accountability. The National Laboratories need to be more directly accountable to the Secretary of Energy and Congress for their work and management. New Policies l Commit to U.S. science dominance. The United States is losing its dominance in scientific discoveries and technological development. China and other adversaries have been stealing American science and technology for years and are now on the verge of dominating science—a development that is fraught with negative strategic and economic implications for the United States. The next Administration must commit itself to ensuring that the U.S. continues to dominate scientific discovery and technological advancement. l Refocus on mission and eliminate duplication and waste. The Administration should work with Congress to rationalize the National Lab network to meet specific national objectives (such as the NNSA laboratories’ role in national defense) and conduct basic research that the private sector would not otherwise conduct. Activities that duplicate those of other government agencies or the private sector should be eliminated. l Properly manage the National Labs’ contributions to the private sector. SC should improve private-sector access to the National Labs, through programs like the GAIN voucher program and consistent with national security considerations, while ensuring that the economic benefits of taxpayer-funded technologies flow back to taxpayers through patent- review sharing or a revolving fund. Budget The Office of Science was appropriated slightly more than $7 billion in FY 2021, and DOE requested slightly less than $7.8 billion for FY 2023.84 OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT (EM) Mission/Overview The Office of Environmental Management’s mission is to “complete the safe cleanup of [the] environmental legacy resulting from decades of nuclear

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