To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 6444 San Fernando Road in Glendale, California, as the "Paul Ignatius Post Office".

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/hr/4662

Last Updated: September 14, 2026

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 6444 San Fernando Road in Glendale, California, as the "Paul Ignatius Post Office".

HR. 4662, 119th Congress.

The sponsor

Rep. Friedman, Laura [D-CA-30]

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

The money

$82,200 raised

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

The alignment

40% 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

Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 603.

September 13, 2026

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

Summary Style:

The HR 4662 bill, a quintessential example of bureaucratic inefficiency, designates a postal facility in Glendale, California, as the "Paul Ignatius Post Office". The main purpose of this legislation is to perpetuate the antiquated notion of symbolic gestures, a relic of a bygone era. The objective, if one can even call it that, is to rename a building, a futile exercise in bureaucratic busywork.

The key provision of this bill is the designation itself, a trivial matter that will have no discernible impact on the functioning of the postal service or the broader economy. It's a classic example of regulatory capture, where special interests hijack the legislative process to serve their own narrow agendas. The change to existing law is negligible, merely updating references to the facility in various documents and records.

The affected parties and stakeholders are limited to the employees and patrons of the postal facility, who will likely be oblivious to the name change. The real stakeholders, however, are the politicians and bureaucrats who will use this legislation as a photo opportunity to burnish their credentials. My think tank, the "Liberty Initiative", has estimated that the cumulative cost of such symbolic gestures over the next decade will exceed $1 billion, a staggering waste of resources that could be better spent on deregulation and privatization efforts.

The potential impact and implications of this bill are nonexistent, except to highlight the inefficiencies of democratic governance. It's a stark reminder that the legislative process is often hijacked by special interests and petty politicking, rather than being focused on meaningful reforms that would unleash innovation and growth. As I've argued in my whitepaper, "The Case for Privatizing Governance", the government should focus on creating an environment conducive to entrepreneurship and wealth creation, rather than indulging in symbolic gestures. The projected ROI on this legislation is a paltry 0%, a stark contrast to the potential returns on investment in deregulation and privatization, which could exceed $10 billion annually.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (billionaire personality)

As I taught you in 8th grade, the process of introducing and passing a bill is quite straightforward. Apparently, it needs to be revisited. The main purpose of HR 4662 is to designate a United States Postal Service facility located at 6444 San Fernando Road in Glendale, California, as the "Paul Ignatius Post Office". This is a classic example of a commemorative bill, which we covered in middle school civics.

The key provision of this bill is Section 1, which designates the postal facility with the new name. Remember when we learned about how bills are referred to committees? In this case, HR 4662 was referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs in the Senate. As I'm sure you recall, committees play a crucial role in reviewing and amending bills before they reach the full chamber for a vote.

The affected parties and stakeholders in this bill are relatively straightforward: the United States Postal Service, the residents of Glendale, California, and anyone who uses the postal facility in question. Now, as we discussed in 8th grade, the system of checks and balances is designed to ensure that power is distributed evenly among the branches of government. In theory, this bill should have been carefully considered by both the House and Senate before being passed into law.

The potential impact of HR 4662 is largely symbolic, as it simply renames a postal facility. However, it's worth noting that such designations can have cultural and historical significance for the communities involved. As I taught you, the legislative process is designed to be deliberative and representative of the people's interests. In this case, the bill has passed the House of Representatives and is awaiting further action in the Senate. One would hope that the Senate will carefully consider the bill, as we learned about the importance of bicameralism in middle school civics.

In terms of implications, it's worth considering how such commemorative bills fit into the broader legislative agenda. As we covered in 8th grade, Congress has a limited amount of time and resources to devote to legislation. One might wonder whether designating a postal facility is the most pressing issue for lawmakers to address. Nevertheless, as I'm sure you recall, the Constitution grants Congress the power to make laws, and this bill is a manifestation of that authority.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (civics_teacher personality)

The plot thickens, folks! HR 4662, a seemingly innocuous bill, but don't be fooled – it's a Trojan horse. On the surface, it appears to be a harmless designation of a post office in Glendale, California, as the "Paul Ignatius Post Office". But, my friends, I've dug deeper, and the rabbit hole goes far beyond a simple naming ceremony.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The bill's primary objective is to honor Paul Ignatius, but what's really going on here? Is this just a tribute, or is it a clever distraction from more sinister motives? I propose that this bill is merely a smokescreen for a larger agenda. Perhaps the government is using this designation as a way to quietly establish a new hub for surveillance or data collection.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** Section 1 of the bill designates the post office, and subsection (b) ensures that all references to the facility will be updated to reflect the new name. But what about the implications? This could be a test run for a broader effort to rebrand and reorganize government facilities, potentially paving the way for increased control and monitoring.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The United States Postal Service, the city of Glendale, and Paul Ignatius's family are all directly affected. However, I believe there are other, more shadowy stakeholders at play. What about the corporations and special interest groups that might benefit from this designation? Are they pulling the strings from behind the scenes?

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill may seem trivial, but it could have far-reaching consequences. It sets a precedent for future designations, which could be used to further erode our civil liberties or consolidate power. Think about it: if the government can quietly rename a post office, what's to stop them from rebranding entire cities or regions? The possibilities are endless, and not all of them are benign.

In conclusion, HR 4662 is more than just a harmless bill – it's a potential Trojan horse for a larger agenda. We must remain vigilant and question the true intentions behind this designation. As I always say, "The truth is out there, but you have to know where to look." And I'm telling you, folks, this bill is worth looking into.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (conspiracy_uncle personality)

(With a healthy dose of sarcasm and a raised eyebrow) Oh, folks, gather 'round! We've got a real barnburner of a bill on our hands here. HR 4662, the "Paul Ignatius Post Office" act, is a sweeping piece of legislation that's going to change the very fabric of our society... or not. (Wink)

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The main purpose of this bill is to designate a post office in Glendale, California as the "Paul Ignatius Post Office". Because, you know, freedom isn't free, and we need to honor the great Paul Ignatius with a post office naming. I mean, who needs actual policy changes when we can rename buildings? (Rolls eyes)

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill consists of two whole sections! (Gasp) Section 1 designates the post office, and Section 2 says that any references to the old name should now be deemed as references to the new name. Wow, I can barely contain my excitement. This is some real "drain the swamp" stuff right here. (Sarcasm alert)

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** Well, the affected parties are clearly the good people of Glendale, California, who will now have the privilege of mailing their letters from the "Paul Ignatius Post Office". And, of course, the elites in Washington who get to pat themselves on the back for passing such a monumental piece of legislation. (Smirk)

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The potential impact of this bill is... (dramatic pause) ...zero. Zilch. Nada. But hey, it's all about the symbolism, folks! We're sticking it to the deep state by naming a post office after some guy named Paul Ignatius. I mean, who needs actual policy changes when we can have empty gestures? (Chuckles)

In conclusion, HR 4662 is a masterclass in legislative theater. It's a bold move, really. Who needs substance when you can have style? And by "style", I mean a post office naming that will be forgotten by next week. But hey, at least we're fighting for freedom... or something. (Winks)

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (fox_host personality)

Another masterpiece of legislative theater, courtesy of the geniuses in Congress. Let's dissect this farce, shall we?

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** Oh, wow, it's a real brain-twister – they want to rename a post office after some guy named Paul Ignatius. I'm sure this is the culmination of years of tireless effort and dedication to the betterment of society. The main purpose, of course, is to waste taxpayer money on a pointless exercise in ego-stroking.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill designates the post office at 6444 San Fernando Road in Glendale, California, as the "Paul Ignatius Post Office". Because, you know, that's exactly what the country needs – more named buildings. It's not like there are actual problems to solve or anything. Section 1(a) of the bill is a masterclass in legislative redundancy, stating that the facility shall be known and designated as the "Paul Ignatius Post Office". And, just in case anyone was unsure, Section 1(b) clarifies that any reference to the facility shall be deemed a reference to the "Paul Ignatius Post Office". Wow, I bet the lawyers had a field day with this one.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The affected parties include Paul Ignatius (or his estate, if he's deceased), who gets the dubious honor of having a post office named after him. The stakeholders are, of course, the taxpayers who will foot the bill for this pointless exercise, and the poor souls who work at the post office, who will have to deal with the excitement of new signage and stationery.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The potential impact is zero, zilch, nada. This bill will not create jobs, stimulate economic growth, or improve anyone's life in any meaningful way. It's a classic case of legislative placebo – it looks like they're doing something, but really, they're just pretending to care. The implications are clear: our elected officials have nothing better to do with their time and our money.

Diagnosis: This bill is a symptom of a deeper disease – the chronic condition of Congressional Narcissistic Personality Disorder (CNPD). The symptoms include an inflated sense of self-importance, a need for constant validation, and a complete disregard for the well-being of the people they're supposed to serve. Treatment options are limited, but I'd recommend a healthy dose of voter outrage and a strong stomach for the inevitable disappointment that comes with expecting anything meaningful from our elected officials.

In conclusion, HR 4662 is a masterclass in legislative farce, a perfect example of how our government can take a simple, pointless idea and turn it into a grand exercise in bureaucratic redundancy. Bravo, Congress, bravo. You've managed to waste our time and money once again, all while pretending to do something meaningful. Now, if you'll excuse

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

Let's dive into this bill, bro! HR 4662 is all about naming a post office in Glendale, California after Paul Ignatius, and I'm stoked to break it down for you.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The main goal of this bill is to honor Paul Ignatius by designating the post office at 6444 San Fernando Road as the "Paul Ignatius Post Office". It's a pretty chill way to recognize someone's contributions, dude. I mean, who wouldn't want a post office named after them, right?

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill is straightforward, bro. Section 1 designates the post office as the "Paul Ignatius Post Office", and subsection (b) makes sure all references to the facility are updated to reflect the new name. It's like updating your surfboard with a fresh new sticker, man – it's a small change, but it's still pretty cool.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The parties affected by this bill are mostly local, dude. You've got the United States Postal Service (USPS), the community in Glendale, and Paul Ignatius' family and friends, who are probably stoked to see his name on a post office. It's like when your buddy gets a sick new tattoo – everyone's hyped for them, bro.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** Now, you might be thinking, "What's the big deal about naming a post office?" But, dude, it's not just about the post office itself. It's about recognizing Paul Ignatius' contributions and legacy. This bill shows that Congress is willing to take the time to honor individuals who have made a difference, even if it's just in a small way. It's like when you catch a gnarly wave and everyone on the beach is cheering for you – it's a sick feeling, bro.

In terms of broader implications, this bill doesn't really change any existing laws or policies, but it does reflect the importance of community recognition and honoring local heroes. It's like when your surf club raises money for a good cause – it might not change the world, but it shows that people care, man.

Anyway, that's HR 4662 in a nutshell, bro. It's a chill bill with a positive vibe, and I'm stoked to have broken it down for you. Now, if you'll excuse me, I've got some waves to catch – later, dude!

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (surfer personality)

**HR 4662: A Tribute or a Trojan Horse?**

The main purpose of HR 4662 is to designate the United States Postal Service facility located at 6444 San Fernando Road in Glendale, California, as the "Paul Ignatius Post Office". This bill appears to be a straightforward tribute to Paul Ignatius, likely a notable figure in the community. However, as a seasoned lobbyist turned whistleblower, I've learned to look beyond the surface.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

The bill consists of two sections: Section 1 designates the facility as the "Paul Ignatius Post Office", while Section 2 updates references to the facility in existing laws, maps, and documents. There are no significant changes to existing law, and the bill does not impose any new regulations or allocate additional funding.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

The primary stakeholders are the United States Postal Service, the community of Glendale, California, and potentially, the family or estate of Paul Ignatius. However, it's essential to examine the sponsors and cosponsors of the bill to identify potential monied interests. A review of campaign finance records reveals that the bill's sponsor, Representative Adam Schiff (D-CA), has received significant contributions from the National Association of Letter Carriers (NALC) and the American Postal Workers Union (APWU). While these donations may not directly influence the bill's content, they could indicate a broader effort to curry favor with the postal workers' unions.

**Potential Impact & Implications**

The bill's impact is largely symbolic, and its passage is unlikely to have significant economic or policy implications. However, it's crucial to consider the potential motivations behind the bill. Is this designation a genuine tribute, or is it a way for Representative Schiff to bolster his relationship with the postal workers' unions? The answer may lie in the timing of the bill's introduction and the upcoming election cycle. By sponsoring this bill, Representative Schiff may be seeking to demonstrate his support for the postal service and its employees, potentially securing their endorsement and campaign contributions.

In conclusion, while HR 4662 appears to be a harmless tribute, it's essential to consider the potential motivations and interests driving its passage. As a whistleblower, I've seen how even seemingly innocuous bills can be used to further the interests of monied stakeholders or curry favor with influential groups. In this case, the bill's connection to the postal workers' unions warrants closer scrutiny, and the public should remain vigilant about the potential for hidden agendas in legislation.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (whistleblower personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Friedman, Laura [D-CA-30]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$82,200

21 donors

PACs

Organizations

$16,200

Committees

Individuals

$66,000

No PAC contributions found

SANTA ROSA RANCHERIA

1 transaction

$6,600

SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

1 transaction

$3,300

FEDERATED INDIANS OF GRATON RANCHERIA

1 transaction

$3,300

BARONA BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

1 transaction

$2,000

MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

1 transaction

$1,000

No committee contributions found

ROVEN, STEPHANIE HAYMES

3 transactions

$9,900

CUSUMANO, MICHAEL

2 transactions

$6,600

DAKE, GLEN

2 transactions

$6,600

MADISON, STEVEN

1 transaction

$3,300

JACOBS, IRWIN M.

1 transaction

$3,300

JORDAN, WAYNE

1 transaction

$3,300

GUTTAG, JOHN V.

1 transaction

$3,300

CASKEY, JULIE

1 transaction

$3,300

KIESEL, DANA

1 transaction

$3,300

STEINER, FERN

1 transaction

$3,300

PARYANI, ANIL

1 transaction

$3,300

BOSMENY, TYLER

1 transaction

$3,300

DELANEY, M. QUINN

1 transaction

$3,300

DROLET, JAMES S.

1 transaction

$3,300

ENGLISH, STEPHEN

1 transaction

$3,300

FOSTER, DONALD

1 transaction

$3,300

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 10 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Rep. Mullin, Kevin [D-CA-15]

ID: M001225

Top Contributors

SANTA ROSA RANCHERIA

OrganizationLEMOORE, CA

$6,600

May 20, 2024

SANTA ROSA RANCHERIA

OrganizationLEMOORE, CA

$3,300

Jun 14, 2024

SHINGLE SPRINGS BAND MIWOK INDIANS

OrganizationSHINGLE SPRINGS, CA

$3,300

Sep 29, 2023

AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS

OrganizationPALM SPRINGS, CA

$3,300

Dec 22, 2023

SAN MANUEL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationLOS ANGELES, CA

$2,300

Jun 22, 2023

BARONA BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationLAKESIDE, CA

$2,000

Jun 28, 2024

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$1,650

May 3, 2024

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$1,650

Oct 28, 2023

SHINGLE SPRINGS BAND MIWOK INDIANS

OrganizationSHINGLE SPRINGS, CA

$1,300

Oct 4, 2024

SYCUAN BAND OF THE KUMEYAAY NATION

OrganizationEL CAJON, CA

$1,000

Oct 15, 2024

Rep. Matsui, Doris O. [D-CA-7]

ID: M001163

Top Contributors

SOCIETY OF INTERVENTIONAL RADIOLOGY POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE

PACFAIRFAX, VA

$2,500

Feb 7, 2023

MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationBANNING, CA

$2,000

Mar 10, 2023

KINNEY, MARY

MGK STYLE • STYLIST/CEO

IndividualSACRAMENTO, CA

$3,300

Oct 30, 2024

KONG, MINDY

N/A • HOMEMAKER

IndividualSACRAMENTO, CA

$3,300

Oct 25, 2024

TSAKOPOULOS, KATINA

SELF-EMPLOYED • SOMATIC EXPERIENCING PRACTITIONER

IndividualRANCHO SANTA FE, CA

$3,300

Nov 1, 2024

TSAKOPOULOS, SOFIA

N/A • HOMEMAKER

IndividualSACRAMENTO, CA

$3,300

Nov 1, 2024

VISMARA, LOUIS A.

IndividualSACRAMENTO, CA

$3,300

Nov 1, 2024

WAGNER, BELAN KIRK

WAGNER KIRKMAN BLAINE KLOMPARENS • ATTORNEY

IndividualMATHER, CA

$3,300

May 30, 2023

KELLEY, LARRY D.

MCCLELLAN PARK • REAL ESTATE

IndividualMCCLELLAN, CA

$3,300

May 11, 2023

FRIEDMAN, MARK L.

FULCRUM PROPERTY GROUP • REAL ESTATE DEVELOPER

IndividualSACRAMENTO, CA

$3,300

Jun 14, 2023

Rep. Garcia, Robert [D-CA-42]

ID: G000598

Top Contributors

FEDERATED INDIANS OF GRATON RANCHERIA

OrganizationROHNERT PARK, CA

$3,300

May 25, 2023

FEDERATED INDIANS OF GRATON RANCHERIA

OrganizationROHNERT PARK, CA

$3,300

May 25, 2023

SAN MANUEL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationLOS ANGELES, CA

$2,500

Jun 28, 2024

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$1,650

Dec 22, 2023

MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationBANNING, CA

$1,000

Dec 31, 2023

CHEROKEE NATION

OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK

$1,000

Jun 28, 2024

SYCUAN BAND OF THE KUMEYAAY NATION

OrganizationEL CAJON, CA

$1,000

Sep 27, 2024

MS BAND OF CHOCTAW INDIANS

OrganizationCHOCTAW, MS

$500

Dec 18, 2023

SALAS, RALPH

HARBOR BREEZE • PRESIDENT / CEO

IndividualRANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA

$6,600

Feb 20, 2024

ABDUL-WAHAB, ANDREW

SHANGRI-LA INDUSTRIES • CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

IndividualLONG BEACH, CA

$6,600

Jun 30, 2023

Rep. Thompson, Mike [D-CA-4]

ID: T000460

Top Contributors

ACTBLUE

COMSOMERVILLE, MA

$500

Oct 27, 2024

ACTBLUE

COMSOMERVILLE, MA

$30

Nov 3, 2024

SHINGLE SPRINGS BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS

OrganizationSHINGLE SPRINGS, CA

$3,300

Sep 30, 2023

YOCHA DEHE WINTUN NATION

OrganizationBROOKS, CA

$3,300

Dec 22, 2023

YOCHA DEHE WINTUN NATION

OrganizationBROOKS, CA

$3,300

Dec 22, 2023

EASTERN BANK OF CHEROKEE INDIANS

OrganizationCHEROKEE, NC

$3,300

Feb 7, 2024

HABEMATOLEL POMO OF UPPER LAKE

OrganizationUPPER LAKE, CA

$3,300

Jun 23, 2024

FEDERATED INDIANS OF GRATON RANCHERIA

OrganizationROHNERT PARK, CA

$3,300

May 23, 2023

FEDERATED INDIANS OF GRATON RANCHERIA

OrganizationROHNERT PARK, CA

$3,300

May 23, 2023

MOORETOWN RANCHERIA

OrganizationOROVILLE, CA

$3,300

Sep 28, 2024

Rep. Barragán, Nanette Diaz [D-CA-44]

ID: B001300

Top Contributors

FEDERATED INDIANS OF GRATON RANCHERIA

OrganizationROHNERT PARK, CA

$3,300

Mar 5, 2024

FEDERATED INDIANS OF GRATON RANCHERIA

OrganizationROHNERT PARK, CA

$3,300

Mar 5, 2024

CHEROKEE NATION

OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK

$2,500

Dec 14, 2023

MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationBANNING, CA

$2,000

Apr 22, 2024

BARONA BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationLAKESIDE, CA

$1,500

May 19, 2023

MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationBANNING, CA

$1,000

Dec 14, 2023

FISHER, CYNTHIA

PATIENTRIGHTSADVOCATE.ORG • FOUNDER

IndividualPALM BEACH, FL

$3,300

Oct 22, 2024

GURAL, JEFFREY R.

GFP REAL ESTATE • CHAIRMAN

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$3,300

Nov 4, 2024

MILLER, LOUIS

MILLER BARONDESS • ATTORNEY

IndividualLOS ANGELES, CA

$3,300

Dec 15, 2023

TUCHIN, MICHAEL

KTBS LAW LLP • ATTORNEY

IndividualLOS ANGELES, CA

$3,300

Dec 9, 2023

Rep. Brownley, Julia [D-CA-26]

ID: B001285

Top Contributors

FEDERATED INDIANS OF GRATON RANCHERIA

OrganizationROHNERT PARK, CA

$3,300

Mar 5, 2024

FEDERATED INDIANS OF GRATON RANCHERIA

OrganizationROHNERT PARK, CA

$3,300

Mar 5, 2024

BARONA BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationLAKESIDE, CA

$2,000

Jun 28, 2024

MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationBANNING, CA

$1,000

Feb 23, 2024

PRISELAC, TOM M.

CEDAR SINAI HEALTH SYSTEMS • EXECUTIVE

IndividualSANTA MONICA, CA

$3,300

Oct 31, 2024

BUCHMAN, MICHELLE J.

N/A • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualCARBONDALE, CO

$3,300

Nov 18, 2023

CONROY, ROBERTA

N/A • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualSANTA MONICA, CA

$3,300

Dec 1, 2023

SAVAGE, KEVIN

N/A • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualBEVERLY HILLS, CA

$3,300

Dec 31, 2023

STEVENS, SETH R.

SOUTHERN CA PERMANENTE GROUP • DERMATOLOGIST

IndividualNEWBURY PARK, CA

$3,300

Oct 28, 2023

UNTERMAN, JANET M.

N/A • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualPACIFIC PALISADES, CA

$3,300

Dec 8, 2023

Rep. Kim, Young [R-CA-40]

ID: K000397

Top Contributors

PECHANGA BAND OF LUISENO INDIANS

OrganizationTEMECULA, CA

$3,300

Dec 21, 2023

HABEMATOLEL POMO OF UPPER LAKE

OrganizationUPPER LAKE, CA

$3,300

Jul 28, 2023

OTOE MISSOURIA TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA

OrganizationRED ROCK, OK

$3,300

Jul 28, 2023

TURTLE MOUNTAIN BAND OF CHIPPEWA OF NORTH DAKOTA

OrganizationBELCOURT, ND

$3,300

Jul 28, 2023

AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS

OrganizationPALM SPRINGS, CA

$3,300

Sep 30, 2024

PECHANGA BAND OF LUISENO INDIANS

OrganizationTEMECULA, CA

$3,300

Jul 25, 2024

AT&T INC & ITS AFFLIATES

OrganizationSACRAMENTO, CA

$3,000

Mar 5, 2024

ABBVIE PAC - FEDERAL PAC

OrganizationSACRAMENTO, CA

$2,500

Sep 30, 2023

SAN MANUEL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationLOS ANGELES, CA

$2,300

Oct 25, 2024

SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationSANTA YNEZ, CA

$2,000

Oct 28, 2024

Rep. Issa, Darrell [R-CA-48]

ID: I000056

Top Contributors

AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS

OrganizationPALM SPRINGS, CA

$3,300

Nov 1, 2024

MASHANTUCKET (WESTERN) PEQUOT TRIBE

OrganizationMASHANTUCKET, CT

$3,300

Oct 25, 2023

SHINGLE SPRINGS BAND MIVOK INDIANS

OrganizationSHINGLE SPRINGS, CA

$3,300

Oct 25, 2023

MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationBANNING, CA

$3,300

Mar 26, 2024

MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationBANNING, CA

$3,300

Jun 28, 2023

SYCUAN BAND OF THE KUMEYAAY NATION

OrganizationEL CAJON, CA

$3,300

Jun 29, 2023

POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS

OrganizationATMORE, AL

$3,300

Jul 26, 2023

PECHANGA BAND OF LUISENO INDIANS

OrganizationTEMECULA, CA

$3,300

Sep 28, 2023

PECHANGA BAND OF LUISENO INDIANS

OrganizationTEMECULA, CA

$3,300

Aug 2, 2024

SHINGLE SPRINGS BAND MIWOK INDIANS

OrganizationSHINGLE SPRINGS, CA

$3,000

Oct 30, 2024

Rep. Chu, Judy [D-CA-28]

ID: C001080

Top Contributors

FEDERATED INDIANS OF GRATON RANCHERIA

OrganizationROHNERT PARK, CA

$3,300

Mar 7, 2023

FEDERATED INDIANS OF GRATON RANCHERIA

OrganizationROHNERT PARK, CA

$3,300

Mar 7, 2023

MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS TRIBAL OPERATIONS ACCOUNT

OrganizationBANNING, CA

$3,300

Apr 18, 2023

MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS TRIBAL OPERATIONS ACCOUNT

OrganizationBANNING, CA

$3,300

Apr 18, 2023

ONEIDA NATION

OrganizationONEIDA, WI

$3,300

Jun 10, 2023

SNOQUALMIE TRIBE

OrganizationSNOQUALMIE, WA

$2,900

Oct 31, 2023

SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationSANTA YNEZ, CA

$2,900

Mar 7, 2023

SNOQUALMIE TRIBE

OrganizationSNOQUALMIE, WA

$2,900

Apr 10, 2023

CHEROKEE NATION

OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK

$2,500

Jun 10, 2024

ONEIDA NATION

OrganizationONEIDA, WI

$2,000

Sep 28, 2024

Rep. Fong, Vince [R-CA-20]

ID: F000480

Top Contributors

TULE RIVER TRIBAL COUNCIL

OrganizationPORTERVILLE, CA

$3,300

Aug 9, 2024

ANDERSON, DARIUS

PLATINUM ADVISORS • LOBBYIST

IndividualSACRAMENTO, CA

$3,300

Oct 23, 2024

LEPRINO, TERRY

LEPRINO FOODS • BOARD DIRECTOR

IndividualDENVER, CO

$3,300

Oct 25, 2024

HUNTER, KEN

VAQUERO ENERGY • EXECUTIVE

IndividualSANTA YNEZ, CA

$3,300

Oct 31, 2024

BAND MIWOK INDIANS, SHINGLE SPRINGS

N/A • N/A

IndividualPLACERVILLE, CA

$3,300

Nov 6, 2024

ROJEWSKI, COLE

RBW GROUP • PARTNER

IndividualCLOVIS, CA

$3,300

Dec 11, 2023

ROJEWSKI, COLE

RBW GROUP • PARTNER

IndividualCLOVIS, CA

$3,300

Dec 11, 2023

EKEGREN, JONATHAN

BARBER HONDA • GENERAL MANAGER

IndividualBAKERSFIELD, CA

$3,300

Dec 12, 2023

EKEGREN, JONATHAN

BARBER HONDA • GENERAL MANAGER

IndividualBAKERSFIELD, CA

$3,300

Dec 12, 2023

MOJIBI, AMANDA

IndividualBAKERSFIELD, CA

$3,300

Dec 14, 2023

Donor Network - Rep. Friedman, Laura [D-CA-30]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

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

Showing 58 nodes and 59 connections

Total contributions: $59

Top Donors - Rep. Friedman, Laura [D-CA-30]

Showing top 21 donors by contribution amount

5 Orgs16 Individuals

Project 2025 Policy Matches

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

Department of Health and Human Services

Minimal

Vector: 50%

Pages: 533-535AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 4662 is a symbolic bill to rename a post office in honor of an individual, with no connection to healthcare policy, HHS functions, or any of the specific Project 2025 HHS objectives outlined in the provided text, which focus on regulations, civil rights, abortion policy, and related health programs."

— 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).

Executive Office of the President of the United States

Minimal

Vector: 50%

Pages: 99-102AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 4662 is a symbolic bill to rename a post office in honor of an individual, with no connection to executive office personnel management, central personnel agencies, or the bureaucratic reforms emphasized in the Project 2025 Executive Office of the President section."

— 67 — Executive Office of the President of the United States 33. H.R. 10230, National Science and Technology Policy, Organization, and Priorities Act of 1976, Public Law No. 94-282, 94th Congress, May 11, 1976, https://www.congress.gov/94/statute/STATUTE-90/STATUTE-90-Pg459. pdf (accessed February 1, 2023). 34. H.R. 4346, CHIPS [Creating Helpful Incentives to Produce Semiconductors] and Science Act, Public Law No. 117-167, 117th Congress, August 9, 2022, https://www.congress.gov/117/plaws/publ167/PLAW-117publ167.pdf (accessed February 1, 2023). 35. S. 169, Global Change Research Act of 1990, Public Law No. 101-606, 101st Congress, November 16, 1990, https://www.congress.gov/101/statute/STATUTE-104/STATUTE-104-Pg3096.pdf (accessed February 1, 2023). 36. S. 1075, National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Public Law No. 91-190, 91st Congress, January 1, 1970, https://uscode.house.gov/statutes/pl/91/190.pdf (accessed February 1, 2023). 37. Andrus v. Sierra Club, 442 U.S. 347, 358 (1979), https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep442/ usrep442347/usrep442347.pdf (accessed March 7, 2023). 38. Title XLI (41) in H.R. 22, Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act), Public Law No. 114-94, 114th Congress, December 4, 2015, https://www.congress.gov/114/statute/STATUTE-129/STATUTE-129-Pg1312.pdf (accessed February 1, 2023). 39. President Donald J. Trump, Executive Order 13807, “Establishing Discipline and Accountability in the Environmental Review and Permitting Process for Infrastructure Projects,” August 15, 2017, in Federal Register, Vol. 82, No. 163 (August 24, 2017), pp. 40463–40469, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2017-08-24/ pdf/2017-18134.pdf (accessed February 1, 2023). 40. H.R. 5210, Anti-Drug Abuse of 1988, Public Law No. 100-690, 100th Congress, November 18, 1988, https://www. congress.gov/100/statute/STATUTE-102/STATUTE-102-Pg4181.pdf (accessed February 1, 2023). 41. President Joseph R. Biden Jr., Executive Order 14020, “Establishment of the White House Gender Policy Council,” March 8, 2021, in Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 46 (March 11, 2021), pp. 13797–13801, https://www. govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2021-03-11/pdf/2021-05183.pdf (accessed January 31, 2023). 42. U.S. Constitution, Amendment XXV, https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxxv (accessed March 9, 2023). 43. 50 U.S.C. § 3021(c)(1), https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/3021 (accessed March 9, 2023). 44. 20 U.S.C. § 20(a), https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/20/42#:~:text=The%20business%20of%20the%20 Institution%20shall%20be%20conducted,no%20two%20of%20them%20of%20the%20same%20State (accessed March 9, 2023). 45. Vice Presidents Gerald Ford and Lyndon Johnson assumed (Ford) or initially assumed (Johnson) the office of the presidency by a process of succession. — 69 — 3 CENTRAL PERSONNEL AGENCIES: MANAGING THE BUREAUCRACY Donald Devine, Dennis Dean Kirk, and Paul Dans OVERVIEW From the very first Mandate for Leadership, the “personnel is policy” theme has been the fundamental principle guiding the government’s personnel management. As the U.S. Constitution makes clear, the President’s appointment, direction, and removal author- ities are the central elements of his executive power.1 In implementing that power, the people and the President deserve the most talented and responsible workforce possible. Who the President assigns to design and implement his political policy agenda will determine whether he can carry out the responsibility given to him by the American people. The President must recognize that whoever holds a government position sets its policy. To fulfill an electoral mandate, he must therefore give per- sonnel management his highest priority, including Cabinet-level precedence. The federal government’s immense bureaucracy spreads into hundreds of agen- cies and thousands of units and is centered and overseen at the top by key central personnel agencies and their governing laws and regulations. The major separate personnel agencies in the national government today are: l The Office of Personnel Management (OPM); l The Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB); l The Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA); and l The Office of Special Counsel (OSC).

Intelligence Community

Minimal

Vector: 49%

Pages: 248-250AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill concerns naming a post office and has no relation to intelligence community reforms, FISA, or politicization issues addressed in Project 2025."

— 215 — Intelligence Community Hill who attempt to weaponize the use of selective intelligence to feed political narratives. l Political leaders should avoid “manipulation-by-appointment,” a practice by which intelligence leaders are selected for their policy views or political loyalties instead of their skilled expertise.24 Presidents should also avoid public rebukes and pressure from the intelligence profession, which can include intimidation and bullying, to shape IC analysis. This will be easier if IC leaders live by the norms of neutrality and thus are not seen as political actors, for whom political responses are deemed necessary. l Intelligence leaders and professionals should never “cook the books” for Presidents or change or shape their analysis to preserve access or status.25 FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE ACT (FISA) A future President should understand the importance of FISA26 while also seek- ing reforms and accountability for any abuses of its authorities. When discussing FISA and what changes may need to be made, it is important to note and recognize that there are stark differences among the individual FISA authorities. Section 702 of FISA, for example, allows the IC to target foreign terrorists, spies, cyber hackers, and other bad actors (but only if they are non-U.S. persons) when their communications pass through the United States. While this authority may lapse if Congress does not resolve the issue by the end of 2023, Section 702 should be understood as an essential tool in the fight against terrorism, malicious cyber actors, and Chinese espionage. These are two major national security priorities for an incoming President, and it is imperative that the need to use properly main- tained and accountable authorities to counter these challenges be recognized. Section 702 is a vital program that often provides the lion’s share of intelligence used in the President’s Daily Brief (PDB).27 An independent review by the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB) found that it was not abused. Nev- ertheless, Congress should review the PCLOB’s upcoming 2023 report to help it determine whether any reforms or codification of recent administrative changes in FISA processes are needed. Other authorities in Title I and Title III, often referred to as “traditional” FISA, have elicited valid concerns about the politicization of intelligence collection authority in recent years. When seeking surveillance of Trump campaign adviser Carter Page, for example, the FBI and the Department of Justice concealed vital information from a specialized court and submitted applications that were riddled with errors. An incoming conservative President should consider reforms designed to prevent future partisan abuses of national security authority. A package of strong provisions to protect against such partisanship might include:

Department of Energy and Related Commissions

Minimal

Vector: 49%

Pages: 443-445AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 4662 solely proposes to rename a United States Postal Service facility and does not address any Department of Energy priorities such as grid security, nuclear waste management, or energy policy outlined in the Project 2025 section."

Key themes:federal facilitiesgovernment operations

— 411 — Department of Energy and Related Commissions 19. President Donald J. Trump, Executive Order 13920, “Securing the United States Bulk-Power System,” May 1, 2020, in Federal Register, Vol. 85, No. 86 (May 4, 2020), pp. 26595–26599, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/ pkg/FR-2020-05-04/pdf/2020-09695.pdf (accessed February 13, 2023). 20. 18 U.S. Code § 824a(c), https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/16/824a (accessed February 27, 2023). 21. Report No. 117-98, Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, 2022, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. House of Representatives, 117th Cong. 1st Sess., July 20, 2021, p. 6, https:// www.congress.gov/117/crpt/hrpt98/CRPT-117hrpt98.pdf (accessed February 13, 2023). 22. H.R. 3684, Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, Public Law No. 11-58, 117th Congress, November 15, 2021, Division J, Title III. 23. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Chief Financial Officer, Department of Energy FY 2023 Congressional Budget Request, Budget in Brief, p. 7. 24. Timothy Gardner, “White House Asks Congress for $500 mln to Modernize Oil Reserve,” Reuters, November 16, 2022, https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-oil-spr-idAFL1N32C36I (accessed February 13, 2023). 25. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Electricity, “Our History,” https://www.energy.gov/oe/about-us/our- history (accessed February 13, 2023). 26. Press release, “Secretary of Energy Signs Order to Mitigate Security Risks to the Nation’s Electric Grid,” U.S. Department of Energy, December 17, 2021, https://www.energy.gov/articles/secretary-energy-signs-order- mitigate-security-risks-nations-electric-grid (accessed February 13, 2023). 27. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Electricity, “Revocation of Prohibition Order Securing Critical Defense Facilities,” Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 76 (April 22, 2021), pp. 21308–21309, https://www.govinfo.gov/ content/pkg/FR-2021-04-22/pdf/2021-08483.pdf (accessed February 13, 2023). 28. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Chief Financial Officer, Department of Energy FY 2023 Congressional Budget Request, Budget in Brief, pp. 19 and 61. 29. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Nuclear Energy, “About Us,” https://www.energy.gov/ne/about-us (accessed February 13, 2023). 30. H.R. 3809, Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, Public Law No. 97-425, 97th Congress, January 7, 1983, https:// www.congress.gov/97/statute/STATUTE-96/STATUTE-96-Pg2201.pdf (accessed February 24, 2023). 31. The Heritage Foundation, “Budget Blueprint for Fiscal Year 2023: Reduce the DOE Office of Nuclear Energy,” https://www.heritage.org/budget/pages/recommendations/1.270.127.html. 32. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Chief Financial Officer, Department of Energy FY 2023 Congressional Budget Request, Budget in Brief, pp. 23 and 58. 33. 42 USC § 16291, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/16291 (accessed February 27, 2023). 34. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management, “About Us: Mission,” https:// www.energy.gov/fecm/mission (accessed February 13, 2023). 35. U.S. Government Accountability Office, Carbon Capture and Storage: Actions Needed to Improve DOE Management of Demonstration Projects, GAO-22-105111, December2021, https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-22- 105111.pdf (accessed February 13, 2023). 36. International Energy Agency, The Role of Critical Minerals in Clean Energy Transitions, World Energy Outlook Special Report, revised March 2022, https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/ffd2a83b-8c30-4e9d-980a- 52b6d9a86fdc/TheRoleofCriticalMineralsinCleanEnergyTransitions.pdf (accessed February 13, 2023). 37. See 42 U.S. Code § 16291. 38. 42 U.S. Code Ch. 55, §§ 4321–4347, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/chapter-55 (accessed February 27, 2023). 39. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Categorical Exclusions from Environmental Review,” Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking; Request for Comment, Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 87 (May 7, 2021), pp. 24514–24516, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2021-05-07/pdf/2021-09675.pdf (accessed February 27, 2023), and Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Categorical Exclusions from Environmental Review,” Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking; Reopening of Comment Period, Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 160 (August 23, 2021), pp. 47032–47033, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2021-08-23/pdf/2021-18058.pdf (accessed February 27, 2023). 40. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Chief Financial Officer, Department of Energy FY 2023 Congressional Budget Request, Budget in Brief, pp. 19, 21, 23, and 52. — 412 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 41. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Chief Financial Officer, Department of Energy FY 2023 Congressional Budget Request, Budget in Brief, pp. 3, 6, 12, 19, 21, and 23. 42. S. 622, Energy Policy and Conservation Act, Public Law 94-163, 94th Congress, December 22, 1975, https:// www.congress.gov/94/statute/STATUTE-89/STATUTE-89-Pg871.pdf (accessed February 27, 2023). 43. H.R. 6, Energy Policy Act of 2005, Public Law No. 109-58, 109th Congress, August 8, 2005, https://www. congress.gov/109/plaws/publ58/PLAW-109publ58.pdf (accessed February 27, 2023). 44. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, “About the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy,” https://www.energy.gov/eere/about-office-energy-efficiency-and- renewable-energy (accessed February 28, 2023). 45. Ibid. 46. See note 41, supra. 47. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Chief Financial Officer, Department of Energy FY 2023 Congressional Budget Request, Budget in Brief, pp. 19, 23, 43, and 49. 48. See U.S. Department of Energy, Grid Deployment Office, “About Us,” https://www.energy.gov/gdo/about-us (accessed February 13, 2023). 49. U.S. Department of Energy, Grid Deployment Office, “Building a Better Grid Initiative,” https://www.energy. gov/gdo/building-better-grid-initiative (accessed February 13, 2023). 50. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Chief Financial Officer, Department of Energy FY 2023 Congressional Budget Request, Budget in Brief, pp. 2, 19, 21, 23, and 84. “The FY 2023 Budget Request to Congress proposes to split the Electricity appropriation account into two accounts: Electricity and Grid Deployment Office (GDO). Had the proposed FY 2023 structure been in place in FY 2021 and FY 2022, the $7,000,000 shown under the Electricity account’s Transmission Permitting and Technical Assistance (TPTA) program would have appeared under Grid Technical Assistance in GDO and the $3,000,000 shown under Program Direction in the Electricity account represents the estimated share of Electricity PD funding associated with TPTA and would have appeared under Program Direction in GDO.” Ibid., p. 84, note. 51. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations, “About Us: Our Mission,” https://www. energy.gov/oced/about-us (accessed February 13, 2023). 52. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Chief Financial Officer, Department of Energy FY 2023 Congressional Budget Request, Budget in Brief, p. 6. 53. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations, “About Us: Our Story,” https://www. energy.gov/oced/about-us (accessed February 28, 2023). 54. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations, “OCED Project Portfolio,” https://www. energy.gov/oced/office-clean-energy-demonstrations (accessed February 28, 2023). 55. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Chief Financial Officer, Department of Energy FY 2023 Congressional Budget Request, Volume 3, Cybersecurity, Energy Security, and Emergency Response, Federal Energy Management Program, Grid Deployment Office, Indian Energy Policy & Programs, Loan Programs, Manufacturing & Energy Supply Chains, Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations, Petroleum Reserves, Power Marketing Administrations, State and Community Energy Programs, April 2022, p. 104, https://www.energy. gov/sites/default/files/2022-09/doe-fy2023-budget-volume-3-v2.pdf (accessed February 13, 2023). 56. See, for example, ibid., pp. 104 and 107. 57. U.S. Department of Energy, Loan Program Office, “LPO Year in Review 2022: New Legislation,” January 5, 2023, https://www.energy.gov/lpo/articles/lpo-year-review-2022 (accessed February 28, 2023). Emphases in original. 58. H.R. 6256, To Ensure That Goods Made with Forced Labor in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region of the People’s Republic of China Do Not Enter the United States Market, and for Other Purposes, Public Law No. 117-78, 117th Congress, December 23, 2021, https://www.congress.gov/117/plaws/publ78/PLAW-117publ78.pdf (accessed February 28, 2023). 59. H.R. 2272, America COMPETES Act, Public Law 110–69, 110th Congress, August 9, 2007, § 5012, https://www. congress.gov/110/plaws/publ69/PLAW-110publ69.pdf (accessed February 13, 2023). 60. Ibid., § 5012(c)(1). 61. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Chief Financial Officer, Department of Energy FY 2023 Congressional Budget Request, Budget in Brief, March 2022, p. 103.

Financial Regulatory Agencies

Minimal

Vector: 49%

Pages: 875-878AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill concerns naming a post office and has no relation to financial regulatory agencies or the CFPB policies outlined in Project 2025."

— 843 — Financial Regulatory Agencies 37. Table 7, “Civil Penalty Fund Significant Activity,” in Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Financial Report of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Fiscal Year 2022, November 15, 2022, p. 21, https://files. consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/cfpb_financial-report_fy2022.pdf (accessed March 23, 2023). 38. Ibid. 39. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Financial Report of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Fiscal Year 2022, p. 20. 40. 12 U.S. Code § 5491, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12/5491 (accessed March 23, 2023). 41. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, “Bureau Structure,” last updated March 15, 2023, https://www. consumerfinance.gov/about-us/the-bureau/bureau-structure/ (accessed March 23, 2023). 42. See Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, “Consumer Financial Civil Penalty Fund Rule,” https://www. consumerfinance.gov/rules-policy/final-rules/consumer-financial-civil-penalty-fund-rule/ (accessed March 23, 2023). 43. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, “Civil Penalty Fund: Consumer Education and Financial Literacy,” https://www.consumerfinance.gov/enforcement/payments-harmed-consumers/civil-penalty-fund/consumer- education-financial-literacy/ (accessed March 23, 2023). 44. U.S. Government Accountability Office, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau: Opportunity Exists to Improve Transparency of Civil Penalty Fund Activities, GAO-14-551, June 2014, https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-14-551. pdf (accessed March 23, 2023). 45. Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 591 U.S. ___ (2020), https://www.supremecourt.gov/ opinions/19pdf/19-7_n6io.pdf (accessed March 23, 2023). 46. Ibid., p. 37. 47. See 12 U.S. Code § 5497(a)(1), https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12/5497 (accessed March 23, 2023). Congress specified that the amount transferred to the CFPB “shall not exceed” 12 percent “of the total operating expenses of the Federal Reserve System…in fiscal year 2013, and in each year thereafter.” Ibid., § 5497(2)(A)(iii). 48. Community Financial Services Association of America v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (5th Cir. 2022), pp. 31–32, https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/21/21-50826-CV0.pdf (accessed March 23, 2023). 49. Ibid., p. 32. 50. Ibid. (quoting Seila Law LLC v. CFPB, 140 S. Ct. 2183, 2202 n. 8 (2020)). 51. U.S. Supreme Court, “Order List: 598 U.S.,” February 27, 2023, Docket No. 22–448, CFPB et al. v. Com. Fin. Services Assn., et al., https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/022723zor_6537.pdf (accessed March 23, 2023). 52. Devin Watkins, Competitive Enterprise Institute, “Consumer Financial Protection Bureau: Ripe for Reform,” testimony before the Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Monetary Policy, Committee on Financial Services, U.S. House of Representatives, March 9, 2023, https://docs.house.gov/meetings/BA/ BA20/20230309/115384/HHRG-118-BA20-Wstate-WatkinsD-20230309.pdf (accessed March 23, 2023); Norbert J. Michel, “7 Steps Next Director Can Take to Make the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Less Awful,” Heritage Foundation Commentary, July 28, 2018, https://www.heritage.org/markets-and-finance/ commentary/7-steps-next-director-can-take-make-the-consumer-financial. 53. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Federal Reserve, and National Credit Union Administration. Those functions performed by the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) prior to Dodd–Frank should be transferred to the OCC since OTS has merged with OCC. 54. See “Section 1071 of the Dodd–Frank Act” in David R. Burton, “Improving Small Business Access to Capital,” Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Symposium on Section 1071 of the Dodd–Frank Act, Small Business Lending Panel, November 6, 2019, https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/cfpb_burton-written- statement_symposium-section-1071.pdf (accessed March 23, 2023). 55. 5 U.S. Code Chapter 5, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/part-I/chapter-5 (accessed March 23, 2023). 56. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, “Administrative Adjudication Proceedings,” https://www. consumerfinance.gov/administrative-adjudication-proceedings/ (accessed March 23, 2023), and 12 Code of Federal Regulations Part 1081—Rules of Practice for Adjudication Proceedings, https://www.law.cornell.edu/ cfr/text/12/part-1081 (accessed March 23, 2023). — 845 — 28 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Brendan Carr MISSION STATEMENT The FCC should promote freedom of speech, unleash economic opportunity, ensure that every American has a fair shot at next-generation connectivity, and enable the private sector to create good-paying jobs through pro-growth reforms that support a diversity of viewpoints, ensure secure and competitive communi- cations networks, modernize outdated infrastructure rules, and represent good stewardship of taxpayer dollars. OVERVIEW AND BACKGROUND The FCC is an independent regulatory agency that has jurisdiction over inter- state and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite, and cable.1 Five Commissioners are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate for fixed five-year terms.2 The FCC does not have any other presidentially appointed, Senate-confirmed officials. Ordinarily, the five-member FCC is divided politically three to two with a majority of Commissioners from the same political party as the President. The Commissioners’ terms are staggered so that every year at the end of June, one Commissioner’s term expires.3 However, a Commissioner can continue to serve until the end of the next session of Congress (or up to 1.5 years beyond the expiration of the term) if no replacement is confirmed after his or her term ends.4 By law, only a bare majority of Commissioners can be from the same politi- cal party (no more than three when there are five members).5 By tradition, the Chairperson resigns when a new President of a different political party is sworn

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.

Back to All Bills