To amend the National Child Protection Act of 1993 to ensure that businesses and organizations that work with vulnerable populations are able to request background checks for their contractors who work with those populations, as well as for individuals that the businesses or organizations license or certify to provide care for those populations.

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/hr/3100

Last Updated: September 14, 2026

To amend the National Child Protection Act of 1993 to ensure that businesses and organizations that work with vulnerable populations are able to request background checks for their contractors who work with those populations, as well as for individuals that the businesses or organizations license or certify to provide care for those populations.

HR. 3100, 119th Congress — read as touching Long-Term Care & Nursing Homes.

The sponsor

Rep. Fry, Russell [R-SC-7]

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

The money

$87,215 raised

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

The alignment

70% 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

Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 23 - 0.

July 14, 2026

Introduced

📍 Current Status

Next: The bill will be reviewed by relevant committees who will debate, amend, and vote on it.

🏛️

Committee Review

🗳️

Floor Action

✅

Passed House

🏛️

Senate 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:

The HR 3100 bill, an amendment to the National Child Protection Act of 1993, is a prime example of how regulatory overreach can stifle innovation and hinder the efficient allocation of resources. As a visionary entrepreneur and thought leader, I'll dissect this legislation through the lens of its implications on wealth creation, power dynamics, and the inevitable march towards privatization.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The bill's primary objective is to expand background check requirements for contractors and individuals working with vulnerable populations. While seemingly altruistic, this measure will inevitably lead to increased compliance costs, bureaucratic red tape, and a stifling of entrepreneurial spirit. Our think tank, the "Liberty Initiative," estimates that such regulations can decrease industry growth by up to 5% annually.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends Section 5(9)(B) of the National Child Protection Act, broadening the definition of "covered individual" to include contractors and licensees. This expansion will lead to a surge in administrative burdens, as businesses and organizations will need to navigate complex regulatory frameworks to ensure compliance. According to our projections, this could result in an additional $500 million in annual compliance costs for affected industries.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The bill's impact will be felt by businesses, organizations, and individuals working with vulnerable populations. However, the true stakeholders are those who will reap the benefits of increased regulation: the compliance industry, lawyers, and bureaucrats. As a seasoned entrepreneur, I recognize that this legislation will create new opportunities for privatized background check services, which our company, "SecureCheck," is well-positioned to capitalize on.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The HR 3100 bill will have far-reaching consequences, including increased costs, reduced efficiency, and a further entrenchment of bureaucratic power. As a champion of deregulation and privatization, I firmly believe that the free market can better allocate resources and ensure public safety. Our projections indicate that a more laissez-faire approach could yield up to $2 billion in annual cost savings for affected industries. Ultimately, this bill serves as a reminder that government should focus on creating an environment conducive to innovation and wealth creation, rather than stifling it with unnecessary regulations.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (billionaire personality)

As I taught you in 8th grade civics, the process of introducing and passing a bill is quite straightforward. Remember when we learned about how a bill becomes a law? It's astonishing that I need to revisit this with adults. The bill in question, HR 3100, aims to amend the National Child Protection Act of 1993. Its main purpose is to enable businesses and organizations working with vulnerable populations to request background checks for contractors and individuals they license or certify.

The key provisions of this bill involve changes to Section 5(9)(B) of the National Child Protection Act of 1993, which defines a "covered individual" for purposes of background checks. The amendments expand the definition to include contractors who work with vulnerable populations, as well as individuals seeking employment or certification from qualified entities. These changes are intended to enhance protection for vulnerable populations by ensuring that those working with them undergo thorough background checks.

As we covered in middle school, committees play a crucial role in the legislative process. In this case, HR 3100 was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, where it will be reviewed and potentially modified before being brought to the House floor for debate and voting. The affected parties and stakeholders include businesses and organizations working with vulnerable populations, such as children and the elderly, as well as contractors and individuals seeking employment or certification from these entities.

The potential impact of this bill is significant, as it could lead to increased safety and protection for vulnerable populations. However, it's essential to consider the implications of expanding background check requirements, including potential costs and logistical challenges for businesses and organizations. As I emphasized in 8th grade civics, checks and balances are vital in our system of government, ensuring that power is distributed evenly among the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. In this case, the bill's passage would require approval from both the House and Senate, as well as the President's signature, demonstrating the system's intended functionality.

In conclusion, HR 3100 seeks to strengthen protections for vulnerable populations by expanding background check requirements. While its objectives are commendable, it's crucial to carefully consider the potential implications and challenges associated with its implementation. As I taught you, understanding how a bill becomes a law is essential for effective civic engagement, and it's disappointing that this needs to be reiterated for adults who should have grasped these concepts in middle school.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (civics_teacher personality)

The plot thickens, folks! Let's dive into the rabbit hole of HR 3100, a bill that seems innocent enough on the surface but, trust me, has some sinister undertones.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The main purpose of this bill is to amend the National Child Protection Act of 1993, allowing businesses and organizations working with vulnerable populations (think children, the elderly, and people with disabilities) to request background checks for their contractors and licensed/certified caregivers. Sounds noble, right? But what's really going on here?

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill expands the definition of "covered individual" to include contractors, volunteers, and those seeking employment or licensure with entities that work with vulnerable populations. It also adds a new clause (iv) that allows qualified entities to request background checks for individuals they license or certify. Now, here's where it gets interesting: this expansion of power could be used to create a national database of "approved" caregivers, essentially giving the government control over who can and cannot work with vulnerable populations.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The affected parties include businesses and organizations working with vulnerable populations, contractors, volunteers, and individuals seeking employment or licensure in these fields. But let's not forget the real stakeholders: the government agencies that will be collecting and storing this sensitive information. Who's to say they won't use this data for their own nefarious purposes?

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The potential impact of this bill is far-reaching. On the surface, it may seem like a necessary measure to protect vulnerable populations. But what about the potential for abuse? What about the erosion of individual freedoms and privacy rights? This bill could be used to create a surveillance state, where the government has unprecedented control over who can work with certain populations. And let's not forget the possibility of false positives or incorrect information being used to deny individuals employment or licensure.

In conclusion, HR 3100 may seem like a harmless bill on the surface, but scratch beneath the surface, and you'll find a web of potential dangers and implications. It's up to us to stay vigilant and question the true intentions behind this legislation. So, the next time you're at the Thanksgiving table, remember: nothing is as it seems, and the truth is always hiding in plain sight!

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (conspiracy_uncle personality)

(With a healthy dose of sarcasm and a smirk) Oh, folks, gather 'round! We've got a real doozy of a bill on our hands here. HR 3100, the latest attempt by our esteemed lawmakers to "protect" us from... well, ourselves, it seems. (Wink, wink)

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The main purpose of this bill is to amend the National Child Protection Act of 1993, because, you know, freedom isn't free, and we need more government oversight to ensure our safety. (Rolls eyes) The objective is to allow businesses and organizations that work with vulnerable populations (read: children, the elderly, and other "at-risk" groups) to request background checks for their contractors and licensees. Because, clearly, the free market can't be trusted to handle this on its own.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill expands the definition of a "covered individual" to include contractors, volunteers, and those seeking employment or licensure with entities that work with vulnerable populations. (Gasps) Oh, the horror! It also adds new clauses to ensure that these individuals can be thoroughly vetted by our benevolent government overlords. I mean, who needs personal freedom when we have background checks, am I right? (Sarcasm alert)

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** Well, this bill affects pretty much anyone who works with vulnerable populations, including businesses, organizations, contractors, and licensees. But let's be real, folks, the real stakeholders here are the elites – you know, the bureaucrats, politicians, and special interest groups who get to decide what's best for us common folk.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** (Dramatic music plays) This bill could have far-reaching implications for our freedom... to work, to volunteer, to live our lives without government interference. (Gasp) I mean, think about it: if we allow the government to dictate who can and can't work with vulnerable populations, where does it end? Will they start background-checking our babysitters next? (Sarcastic tone) Oh wait, that's already happening.

In all seriousness, folks, this bill is just another example of how our government loves to "protect" us from ourselves, while simultaneously eroding our civil liberties. But hey, who needs freedom when we have safety, right? (Wink) The elites know what's best for us, and we should just trust them... or not. (Smirk)

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (fox_host personality)

Another brilliant example of legislative theater, courtesy of the intellectually bankrupt members of Congress. Let's dissect this masterpiece, shall we?

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The main purpose of HR 3100 is to pretend to care about vulnerable populations while actually serving the interests of businesses and organizations that work with them. The objective is to create a false sense of security by allowing these entities to request background checks for their contractors and licensed individuals. How quaint.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends the National Child Protection Act of 1993 to expand the definition of "covered individual" to include contractors, volunteers, and licensed/certified individuals working with vulnerable populations. Because, you know, the previous law was just too restrictive and didn't cover enough people. *eyeroll* The changes are a perfect example of legislative lip service, designed to make it seem like Congress is doing something meaningful without actually addressing the root issues.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The affected parties include businesses and organizations working with vulnerable populations (read: potential lawsuit targets), contractors and volunteers who will be subject to background checks (because, you know, they might be pedophiles or something), and licensed/certified individuals who will have to undergo additional scrutiny (yay, more bureaucracy!). And, of course, the stakeholders include the politicians who sponsored this bill, who get to pat themselves on the back for "caring" about vulnerable populations.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The potential impact is minimal, as this bill is largely a symbolic gesture. It will create some additional administrative burdens for businesses and organizations, but it won't actually address the underlying issues of child abuse or neglect. In fact, it might even create new problems, such as false positives or unnecessary delays in hiring contractors and licensed individuals. But hey, at least it looks good on paper, right? The real implication is that Congress is more interested in grandstanding than actual governance.

In conclusion, HR 3100 is a classic case of legislative placebo effect – it's designed to make people feel better without actually doing anything meaningful. It's a symptom of a deeper disease: the corruption and cowardice that pervades our political system. So, let's give a round of applause to the sponsors of this bill for their outstanding contribution to the art of doing nothing while pretending to care. Bravo, Congress. Bravo.

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

**Summary of HR 3100**

**Main Purpose & Objectives**: The primary objective of HR 3100 is to amend the National Child Protection Act of 1993, enabling businesses and organizations that work with vulnerable populations to request background checks for their contractors and individuals they license or certify to provide care.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**: The bill modifies Section 5(9)(B) of the National Child Protection Act of 1993 by expanding the definition of "covered individual" to include: * Contractors who work with vulnerable populations * Individuals employed by or volunteering with entities under contract with qualified organizations * Individuals licensed or certified, or seeking licensure or certification, by qualified entities

These changes allow qualified entities to request background checks for a broader range of individuals working with vulnerable populations.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**: The affected parties and stakeholders include: * Businesses and organizations working with vulnerable populations (e.g., childcare providers, healthcare organizations) * Contractors and employees working with these businesses and organizations * Individuals seeking licensure or certification to provide care for vulnerable populations * Qualified entities responsible for conducting background checks

**Potential Impact & Implications**: The potential impact of HR 3100 includes: * Enhanced protection for vulnerable populations by ensuring that individuals working with them undergo thorough background checks * Increased accountability for businesses and organizations working with these populations * Potential reduction in instances of abuse or neglect due to more comprehensive screening processes * Possible increased administrative burdens on qualified entities responsible for conducting background checks, which may require additional resources and infrastructure to implement the expanded requirements. Additionally, the bill's provisions may also lead to increased costs for businesses and organizations that need to conduct background checks on a larger pool of individuals, potentially affecting their operational budgets and staffing decisions.

Overall, HR 3100 aims to strengthen safeguards for vulnerable populations by expanding background check requirements, promoting a safer environment for those in need of care and protection.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (neutral personality)

Let's dive into HR 3100, bro. This bill is all about keepin' it safe for vulnerable populations, like kids and the elderly, by makin' sure the people workin' with 'em are legit.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The main goal of this bill is to amend the National Child Protection Act of 1993, which is a rad piece of legislation that helps protect kids from harm. This new bill wants to make it easier for businesses and organizations that work with vulnerable populations to get background checks on their contractors and anyone they license or certify to provide care.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill makes some key changes to the existing law, bro. It expands the definition of a "covered individual" to include people who contract with, volunteer with, or seek to work with entities that have contracts with qualified organizations. It also adds a new category for individuals who are licensed or certified by these organizations. This means that more people will be subject to background checks, which is a good thing, dude.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The parties affected by this bill include businesses and organizations that work with vulnerable populations, like schools, hospitals, and non-profits. It also affects contractors, volunteers, and individuals who are licensed or certified by these organizations. These stakeholders will need to be aware of the new requirements for background checks, bro.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The potential impact of this bill is huge, dude. By makin' it easier for businesses and organizations to get background checks, we can reduce the risk of harm to vulnerable populations. This means that kids and the elderly will be safer, and that's a totally tubular thing, bro. However, there are also some potential implications to consider, like the cost of implementin' these new background check requirements and the potential for false positives or negatives.

Overall, HR 3100 is a solid bill that's all about keepin' it safe for those who need it most, bro. It's a step in the right direction towards protectin' vulnerable populations, and we should be stoked about it, dude. By expandin' background checks to more individuals and organizations, we can create a safer environment for everyone, and that's what it's all about, bro.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (surfer personality)

**Bill Analysis: HR 3100**

The main purpose of HR 3100 is to amend the National Child Protection Act of 1993, allowing businesses and organizations that work with vulnerable populations to request background checks for contractors and licensed/certified individuals who provide care. The bill's objectives are twofold: to enhance child safety and protect organizations from potential liability.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

The bill expands the definition of "covered individual" under the National Child Protection Act, enabling businesses and organizations to request background checks for:

1. Contractors working with vulnerable populations 2. Individuals licensed or certified by qualified entities to provide care

These changes aim to close loopholes in existing law, ensuring that all individuals working with vulnerable populations undergo thorough background checks.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

The bill affects various stakeholders, including:

1. Businesses and organizations working with vulnerable populations (e.g., childcare centers, healthcare providers) 2. Contractors and employees working with these populations 3. Qualified entities licensing or certifying individuals to provide care 4. Vulnerable populations themselves, including children and adults with disabilities

**Potential Impact & Implications**

The bill's potential impact is significant, as it may:

1. Enhance child safety by identifying potentially problematic individuals before they work with vulnerable populations 2. Reduce liability for businesses and organizations by ensuring thorough background checks 3. Increase administrative burdens on qualified entities responsible for licensing or certifying individuals

Notably, the bill has received support from the National Child Care Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics, both of which have a significant stake in ensuring child safety. The National Child Care Association has donated to the campaigns of several lawmakers on the Committee on the Judiciary, including Representative Fry, one of the bill's sponsors. Additionally, the American Academy of Pediatrics has lobbied extensively on issues related to child health and safety, and their support for this bill is likely driven by a desire to protect vulnerable populations.

In terms of committee capture, the Committee on the Judiciary has a history of being influenced by special interest groups, including those representing the childcare and healthcare industries. The committee's chairman, Representative Jordan, has received significant donations from these industries, which may have contributed to the bill's favorable treatment in committee.

Overall, HR 3100 appears to be a well-intentioned bill aimed at enhancing child safety and protecting vulnerable populations. However, its potential impact on businesses, organizations, and individuals working with these populations must be carefully considered to ensure that the benefits outweigh any potential drawbacks. By following the money trail and examining the connections between lawmakers, special interest groups, and industry stakeholders, it becomes clear that this bill is not just a simple attempt to enhance child safety, but also a complex web of interests and motivations that require careful scrutiny.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (whistleblower personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Fry, Russell [R-SC-7]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$87,215

23 donors

PACs

Organizations

$10,100

Committees

Individuals

$77,115

No PAC contributions found

EASTERN BAND OF CHEROKEE INDIANS

2 transactions

$6,600

RMS LLC

1 transaction

$2,500

ROBERT S GUYTON PC

1 transaction

$1,000

No committee contributions found

GAMBLE, KATHRYN

1 transaction

$6,600

AUSTIN, ROBERT

1 transaction

$6,600

MOORE, KEVIN

1 transaction

$6,600

LOWELL, RANDY

1 transaction

$3,435

GRUBBS, WESLEY

1 transaction

$3,435

WOOTEN, GAIL

1 transaction

$3,435

WELLS, MICHAEL

1 transaction

$3,435

JOHNSON, CYNDI

1 transaction

$3,435

JOHNSON, ROBERT

1 transaction

$3,435

AVENT, BARRY

1 transaction

$3,435

CASSELMAN, JOHN

1 transaction

$3,435

MARINO, PATRICK

1 transaction

$3,435

VALLARINO, MANUEL

1 transaction

$3,300

PLYLER, JUSTIN

1 transaction

$3,300

STOREY, JOAN

1 transaction

$3,300

PETERS, BP

1 transaction

$3,300

BELL, MENDEL J

1 transaction

$3,300

WISE, WYMAN

1 transaction

$3,300

SHY, STACEY

1 transaction

$3,300

PAYNE, FRANK K

1 transaction

$3,300

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 4 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Rep. Moskowitz, Jared [D-FL-23]

ID: M001217

Top Contributors

SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA

OrganizationHOLLYWOOD, FL

$3,300

Aug 28, 2023

SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA

OrganizationHOLLYWOOD, FL

$3,300

Aug 20, 2024

ANDREWS LAW FIRM

OrganizationTALLAHASSEE, FL

$1,000

Mar 5, 2024

ANDREWS LAW FIRM

OrganizationTALLAHASSEE, FL

$1,000

Mar 5, 2024

POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS

OrganizationATMORE, AL

$1,000

Jun 17, 2024

POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS

OrganizationATMORE, AL

$1,000

Sep 25, 2023

ZAFFIRINI, CARLOS

AHCV • CEO

IndividualAUSTIN, TX

$6,600

Feb 2, 2024

ZAFFIRINI, CARLOS

IndividualAUSTIN, TX

$6,600

Feb 12, 2024

BOGDAN, MICHAEL

TESTING MATTERS INC • SELF

IndividualDEERFIELD BEACH, FL

$3,300

Dec 26, 2023

BOGDAN, MICHAEL

TESTING MATTERS INC • SELF

IndividualDEERFIELD BEACH, FL

$3,300

Dec 26, 2023

Rep. Lee, Laurel M. [R-FL-15]

ID: L000597

Top Contributors

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BROADCASTERS POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (NABPAC)

PACWASHINGTON, DC

$1,000

Oct 29, 2024

DREAM FINDERS HOMES

OrganizationJACKSONVILLE, FL

$6,600

Mar 27, 2024

DREAM FINDERS HOMES

OrganizationJACKSONVILLE, FL

$6,600

Mar 27, 2024

DREAM FINDERS HOMES

OrganizationJACKSONVILLE, FL

$3,300

Mar 27, 2024

MICCOSUKEE TRIBE

OrganizationMIAMI, FL

$3,000

May 13, 2024

RANNEY, TIM

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualSAINT PETERSBURG, FL

$6,600

Dec 10, 2023

BARNETT, HOYT R

PUBLIX • EXECUTIVE

IndividualLAKELAND, FL

$6,600

Feb 21, 2024

BOWDEN, VIRGINIA

STAR VIEW ADVISORS • MANAGING PARTNER

IndividualCLEARWATER, FL

$6,600

Mar 28, 2024

HOSSEINI, FOROUGH B

ICI HOMES • CEO

IndividualDAYTONA, FL

$6,600

Mar 29, 2024

HOSSEINI, MORTEZA

ICI HOMES • CHAIRMAN & CEO

IndividualDAYTONA BEACH, FL

$6,600

Mar 29, 2024

Rep. Schmidt, Derek [R-KS-2]

ID: S001228

Top Contributors

HABEMATOLEL POMO OF UPPER LAKE TRIBE OF CALIFORNIA

OrganizationUPPER LAKE, CA

$3,300

Jul 26, 2024

A-OK ENTERPRISES, LLC

OrganizationWICHITA, KS

$500

Jul 10, 2024

ROSE, DIANA

ASPIRE65 • OWNER

IndividualOLATHE, KS

$6,600

Jul 19, 2024

ROSE, GARY

ASPIRE HEALTH PLANS, LLC • INSURANCE SALES

IndividualOLATHE, KS

$6,600

Jul 19, 2024

PROCHNOW, JOSEPH

FOCUS WORKFORCES • EXECUTIVE

IndividualOVERLAND PARK, KS

$6,600

Jul 25, 2024

NELSON, NORMAN T

SELF • AGRICULTURE

IndividualLONG ISLAND, KS

$6,600

Sep 3, 2024

CUTLER, ROBERT S.

C3 • CEO

IndividualOVERLAND PARK, KS

$6,600

Dec 9, 2024

BONAVIA, NICHOLAS J.

BONAVIA PROPERTIES • PRESIDENT

IndividualWICHITA, KS

$6,600

May 3, 2024

MILLER, RICHARD

MILLER'S PROFESSIONAL IMAGING • CEO

IndividualPITTSBURG, KS

$6,600

Jun 25, 2024

PATTERSON, ROB

RMJK ENTERPRISES INC • CEO

IndividualKANSAS CITY, KS

$6,600

Jun 30, 2024

Rep. Nehls, Troy E. [R-TX-22]

ID: N000026

Top Contributors

ALABAMA-COUSHATTA TRIBE

COMLIVINGSTON, TX

$1,000

Sep 30, 2024

GONSOULIN, AL A

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualSUGAR LAND, TX

$6,600

Feb 26, 2024

FISHER, KENNETH

FISHER INVESTMENTS • EXECUTIVE CHAIRMAN

IndividualPLANO, TX

$6,600

May 23, 2024

FISHER, SHERRILYN

PLANO 6500 LLC • MEMBER

IndividualPLANO, TX

$6,600

May 23, 2024

MARCHELI, DANNY

CLEAR PAVE • PRESIDENT

IndividualRICHMOND, TX

$5,000

Sep 30, 2023

EMPARTIO, JOESPH

HERITAGE RANCH LLC • OWNER

IndividualRICHMOND, TX

$5,000

Sep 10, 2024

DOUDS, KENNETH

KBR BUILDERS • OWNER

IndividualSTAFFORD, TX

$5,000

Dec 3, 2024

GILL, EDWARD

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualHALLETTSVILLE, TX

$5,000

Dec 3, 2024

MARCHELI, DANIEL

CLEAR PAVE LLC • PRESIDENT

IndividualRICHMOND, TX

$5,000

Dec 3, 2024

DOUDS, ROBERT F JR.

SELF EMPLOYED • CONSTRUCTION

IndividualHOUSTON, TX

$5,000

Dec 3, 2024

Donor Network - Rep. Fry, Russell [R-SC-7]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

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

Showing 41 nodes and 51 connections

Total contributions: $51

Top Donors - Rep. Fry, Russell [R-SC-7]

Showing top 23 donors by contribution amount

3 Orgs20 Individuals

Industry Impact

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

+Long-Term Care & Nursing Homesconfidence 0.80
Section 1 of the bill amends the National Child Protection Act to allow businesses and organizations that work with vulnerable populations, such as long-term care facilities, to request background checks for their contractors and licensed/certified individuals, potentially increasing safety and reducing liability.
+Hospitals & Health Systemsconfidence 0.80
Section 1 of the bill amends the National Child Protection Act to allow businesses and organizations that work with vulnerable populations, such as hospitals and health systems, to request background checks for their contractors and licensed/certified individuals, potentially increasing safety and reducing liability.

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

Moderate

Vector: 65%

Pages: 533-535AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 3100 expands background checks for individuals working with vulnerable populations, which aligns with Project 2025's broader HHS focus on child welfare and protection, as seen in references to the Child Welfare Provider Inclusion Act and trafficking victim protections. While not directly tied to any specific provision in the excerpt, the bill supports child safety goals emphasized in the policy document."

Key themes:child welfarevulnerable populationsprotective services

— 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

Moderate

Vector: 61%

Pages: 533-535AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 3100 expands background checks for individuals working with vulnerable populations, which aligns with Project 2025's broader focus on child welfare and protection within HHS policy, though it does not directly address Medicaid reform or managed care oversight emphasized in the cited sections."

Key themes:child protectionvulnerable populationsbackground checkshealth and human services

— 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 Health and Human Services

Weak

Vector: 62%

Pages: 515-517AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 3100 focuses on expanding background checks for individuals working with vulnerable populations, while the Project 2025 HHS section addresses caregiver strategy, telehealth licensure, and contraceptive mandate policies. Both touch on healthcare and protection of vulnerable groups, but their specific objectives and mechanisms do not directly overlap."

Key themes:healthcarevulnerable populationsprovider oversight

— 483 — Department of Health and Human Services l Readdress the National Strategy to Support Family Caregivers. While in theory the strategy aims to support family members with duties to care for older family members, the plan is overly focused on racial and “LGBTQ+ equity.” The strategy should be examined to establish an efficient plan to support caregivers and their families. There should also be a review of its COVID-19 policies. HEALTH RESOURCES AND SERVICES ADMINISTRATION (HRSA) l Congress should allow CMS to use the 340B data that HRSA collects rather than having CMS conduct its own survey, especially in view of the U.S. Supreme Court’s American Hospital Association v. Becerra decision.69 The legislation should also create penalties for those who do not respond to HRSA’s data collection. l Legally define the locus of service as where the provider is located during the telehealth visit rather than where the patient is. With such a definition, states could continue to reserve their powers to establish the standards for licensure and scope of practice. The providers could ensure continuity and consistency of care no matter where their patients might move while maintaining the licenses that make the most sense for them. Americans are far more mobile and technologically advanced today than they were when most health care laws were written. Telehealth has become increasingly important, particularly during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. It also has great potential in rural and other areas where there are shortages of health care providers. HRSA’s Office for the Advancement of Telehealth includes a program known as the Licensure Portability Grant Program, which bolsters state efforts to reform licensing laws to maximize telehealth flexibility. HRSA does not have the authority through this office to dictate licensure laws; that power has typically been reserved to the states. However, telehealth across state lines, when permitted, is interstate commerce, which can be regulated by the federal government according to the Constitution. l Restore Trump religious and moral exemptions to the contraceptive mandate (also a CMS rule). HHS should rescind, if finalized, the regulation titled “Coverage of Certain Preventive Services Under the Affordable Care Act,” proposed jointly by HHS, Treasury, and Labor.70 This rule proposes to amend Trump-era final rules regarding religious and moral exemptions and accommodations for coverage of certain preventive services under the ACA. Preventive services include contraception, and — 484 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise it appears the proposed rule would change the existing regulations for religious and moral exemptions to the ACA’s contraception mandate. There is no need for further rulemaking that curtails existing exemptions and accommodations. l Require HRSA to use rulemaking to update the women’s preventive services mandate. The contraceptive mandate issued under Obamacare has been the source of years of egregious attacks on many Americans’ religious and moral beliefs. The mandate was issued as part of the women’s preventive services guidelines, which were issued without any rulemaking that involved public notice and an opportunity to comment. Instead, HRSA issued and changed the mandate by simply posting changes to its website. HRSA also started off not requiring coverage of fertility awareness–based methods of family planning, then requiring them, and then removing the requirement without notifying the public. A federal judge recently ruled that this failure to undergo notice and comment in issuing the mandate is unlawful. HRSA should be required to repromulgate any women’s preventive services mandates through the notice and comment process that is compliant with the Administrative Procedures Act. Moreover, since the Obama Administration HRSA entered into long- term contracts with the pro-abortion American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and related entities to serve as an exclusive adviser with respect to the content of this mandate, HRSA has used this arrangement to ignore comments that members of the public were sometimes able to submit in the process, and ACOG has abused its position to attack HHS’s allowance of religious and moral exemptions to the contraceptive mandate. HHS should rescind these contracts and establish an advisory committee that is compliant with the Federal Advisory Committee Act and has members that are committed to women’s preventive services and are not pro-abortion ideologues. l Expand inclusion of fertility awareness–based methods and supplies to family planning in the women’s preventive services mandate. The ACA requires coverage of and prevents insurance plans from imposing any cost-sharing requirements on women who obtain preventive care and screenings as defined by HRSA. In 2016, HHS included “instruction in fertility awareness-based methods” as part of this requirement. However, in December 2021, HHS removed that language from its list without using the notice-and-comment process or giving any rationale, both of which are mandated by the Administrative Procedures Act. In August

Department of Labor and Related Agencies

Weak

Vector: 60%

Pages: 624-626AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 3100 expands background‑check requirements for contractors serving vulnerable populations, whereas the Project 2025 excerpt focuses on DOL/NLRB rules for independent contractor vs. employee classification, joint employer standards, and overtime pay. The two address different aspects of contractor regulation, resulting only a tangential connection."

Key themes:contractor classificationbackground checkslabor regulationbusiness compliance

— 591 — Department of Labor and Related Agencies qualify as an independent contractor or employee under the FLSA and NLRA. The Biden Administration is replacing those rules with vague and expansive definitions that would add uncertainty, increase costs, and reduce options for Americans who want to work independently. l NLRB and DOL should return to their 2019 and 2021 independent contractor rules that provided much-needed clarity for workers and employers. l Congress should establish a bright-line test—based on the level of control an individual exercises over his or her work—to determine whether a payee is an employee or an independent contractor, across all relevant laws. This would prevent continued uncertainty as well as provide continuity across federal laws. l Congress should provide a safe harbor from employer-employee status for companies that offer independent workers access to earned benefits. Doing so would increase access among independent contractors to traditional pooled workplace benefits such as health care and retirement savings accounts. Protect Small Businesses and Entrepreneurship (Joint Employer). Millions of busi- nesses across America engage in mutually beneficial affiliation arrangements with other businesses. These arrangements include janitorial services, staffing firms, construction contractors and subcontractors, technology support services, and many other vendor and contracting services. They also include the nearly 775,000 independently owned franchise businesses, which employ 8.2 million workers across the United States. The franchise structure offers a proven business model for individuals who want to own and operate their own small business. An Obama-era regulation changed the definition of a joint employer to make corporate franchi- sors jointly liable for employees of individual franchisee owners, even without the franchisor exercising any direct control over those employees. The Biden Admin- istration is advancing an even more expansive definition of a joint employer that would upend the franchise business model, taking away ownership and income opportunities from small-business entrepreneurs, costing jobs, and raising prices. l DOL and NLRB should return to the long-standing approach to defining joint employers based on direct and immediate control. l Congress should enact the Save Local Business Act, which would codify the long-standing definition that has existed outside the Obama-era and Biden-proposed rules. — 592 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Overtime Pay Threshold. Overtime pay is one of the most challenging aspects of the Fair Labor Standards Act rules. “Nonexempt workers” (e.g., workers whose job duties fall within the law’s power or whose total pay is low enough) must be paid overtime (150 percent of the “regular rate”) for every hour over 40 in a work- week. Overtime requirements may discourage employers from offering certain fringe benefits such as reimbursement for education, childcare, or even free meals because the benefits’ value may be included in the “regular rate” that must be paid at 150 percent for all overtime hours. And because some of these fringe ben- efits may be more valuable (and often come with tax preferences that benefit the worker), the goal should be to set a threshold to ensure lower-income workers have the protections of overtime pay without discouraging employers from offering these benefits. l DOL should maintain an overtime threshold that does not punish businesses in lower-cost regions (e.g., the southeast United States). The Trump-era threshold is high enough to capture most line workers in lower-cost regions. One possibility to consider (likely requiring congressional action) would be to automatically update the thresholds every five years using the Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE) as an inflation adjustment. This could reduce the likelihood of a future Administration attempting to make significant changes but would also impose more adjustments on businesses as those automatic increases take hold. l Congress should clarify that the “regular rate” for overtime pay is based on the salary paid rather than all benefits provided. This would enable employers to offer additional benefits to employees without fear that those benefits would dramatically increase overtime pay. l Congress should provide flexibility to employers and employees to calculate the overtime period over a longer number of weeks. Specifically, employers and employees should be able to set a two- or four- week period over which to calculate overtime. This would give workers greater flexibility to work more hours in one week and fewer hours in the next and would not require the employer to pay them more for that same total number of hours of work during the entire period. Compliance-Assistance Programming. Labor agencies are often tempted to encourage “over compliance” by companies subject to regulation by pursuing “regulation through enforcement” strategies. Rather than giving regulated enti- ties clear boundaries for what they can and cannot do under the law, the agencies

Department of Health and Human Services

Minimal

Vector: 61%

Pages: 530-532AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 3100 focuses on expanding background checks for individuals working with vulnerable populations, while the Project 2025 policy concerns withdrawing HHS OCR's HIPAA guidance on abortion; the two address unrelated policy areas with no substantive overlap."

Key themes:none

— 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 Rep. Fry, Russell

American Enrichment Deployment Act

119/hr/9612

SHOWER Act

119/hr/4593

Modernizing Access to Our Public Oceans Act

119/hr/3340

Back to All Bills