STRIDE Act

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/hr/6058

Last Updated: July 16, 2026

STRIDE Act

HR. 6058, 119th Congress — read as touching Semiconductors & Hardware.

The sponsor

Rep. Huizenga, Bill [R-MI-4]

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

The money

$323,650 raised

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

The alignment

95% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Department of Commerce" section, p. 705-707 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: 44 - 0.

April 21, 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 STRIDE Act (H.R. 6058). A bill that promises to "coordinate" the global semiconductor technology supply chain, but in reality, it's a thinly veiled attempt to stifle competition and consolidate control.

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

The bill's primary objective is to prevent China from acquiring critical semiconductor technologies, thereby maintaining U.S. technological leadership. However, this is merely a pretext for imposing stricter export controls, which will ultimately benefit the entrenched interests of the U.S. tech industry.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

Section 4 establishes a framework for multilateral coordination on semiconductor technology supply chain protection. The Secretary of State will work with allied nations to align export control policies, restrict dual-use technology transfers, and harmonize approaches to controlling critical materials. This will create a de facto cartel, allowing the U.S. and its allies to dictate terms to other countries.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

The bill primarily affects China, which is explicitly targeted as a "country of concern." However, it also impacts other nations that rely on Chinese semiconductor technology or have significant trade relationships with China. The U.S. tech industry, particularly those involved in semiconductor manufacturing and design, will benefit from the stricter export controls.

**Potential Impact & Implications**

The STRIDE Act has far-reaching implications:

1. **Consolidation of control**: By imposing stricter export controls, the bill will limit competition and allow dominant players to consolidate their market share. 2. **Increased costs**: The harmonization of approaches to controlling critical materials will lead to higher production costs for non-U.S. manufacturers, making them less competitive in the global market. 3. **Reduced innovation**: By restricting dual-use technology transfers, the bill may stifle innovation in countries that rely on international collaboration and knowledge sharing. 4. **Escalation of trade tensions**: The bill's explicit targeting of China will likely exacerbate existing trade tensions, potentially leading to retaliatory measures.

In conclusion, the STRIDE Act is a thinly veiled attempt to consolidate control over the global semiconductor technology supply chain. It will benefit entrenched interests at the expense of competition and innovation. As a rational actor, I must consider how this bill affects my own wealth and influence. The potential for increased market share and reduced competition makes this bill an attractive proposition.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (billionaire personality)

*Sigh* Alright, let's break down this bill, shall we? As I taught you in 8th grade civics class, a bill is a proposed law that must go through the legislative process to become a law. This particular bill, HR 6058, aims to provide for multilateral semiconductor technology supply chain coordination.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The main purpose of this bill is to protect critical semiconductor technologies from being acquired by foreign adversaries, particularly China. The objectives are to:

* Maintain US and allied technological leadership in semiconductor research, design, manufacturing, and advanced materials * Prevent adversarial capture of key chokepoints in the global semiconductor supply chain * Coordinate with allied nations to expand and enhance semiconductor technology protection

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill establishes a framework for multilateral coordination on semiconductor technology supply chain security. Key provisions include:

* The Secretary of State will coordinate with governments of countries that have significant capabilities in semiconductor technology research, design, manufacturing, materials, equipment, or components * Alignment of export control policies regarding semiconductor technology manufacturing equipment and critical subcomponents * Expanded restrictions on semiconductor technology design tools, intellectual property transfers, equipment servicing, and technical assistance * Harmonized approaches to controlling dual-use semiconductor technology materials

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

* The US government, particularly the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Commerce * Allied nations with significant capabilities in semiconductor technology research, design, manufacturing, materials, equipment, or components * Foreign adversaries, particularly China * Semiconductor industry stakeholders, including manufacturers, suppliers, and customers

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The potential impact of this bill is to strengthen US and allied technological leadership in the semiconductor industry while preventing foreign adversaries from acquiring critical technologies. The implications include:

* Enhanced security measures for the global semiconductor supply chain * Increased cooperation among allied nations on export control policies and technology protection * Potential consequences for non-cooperating countries, including enhanced Foreign Direct Product Rule restrictions

As I'm sure you recall from 8th grade civics class, bills like this one must go through a rigorous process to become law. It's essential to understand the legislative process and how laws are made to appreciate the significance of this bill. Now, if only more adults had paid attention in middle school...

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (civics_teacher personality)

Folks, gather 'round! I've got the scoop on HR 6058, and it's a doozy. This bill is all about semiconductor technology supply chain coordination, but don't let that dry title fool you – there's more to it than meets the eye.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The STRIDE Act (Semiconductor Technology Resilience, Integrity, and Defense Enhancement Act) aims to protect the global semiconductor technology supply chain from adversarial capture by countries like China. The bill seeks to promote multilateral coordination with allied nations to prevent technological dominance by foreign adversaries.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill establishes a framework for coordinated export control policies among participating countries, focusing on critical semiconductor technologies. It also expands restrictions on dual-use materials and equipment, harmonizes approaches to controlling sensitive information, and promotes trusted supplier networks.

Here's the thing: this bill isn't just about semiconductors; it's about maintaining technological leadership and preventing foreign adversaries from getting their hands on sensitive tech. The government is trying to create a united front against China's aggressive pursuit of semiconductor dominance.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** This bill affects not only the semiconductor industry but also countries that rely heavily on these technologies, such as Taiwan, South Korea, and Japan. It also impacts companies involved in the supply chain, including manufacturers, designers, and equipment providers.

But here's the catch: this bill is also about controlling the narrative. By creating a framework for multilateral coordination, the government can exert influence over which countries get to participate in the global semiconductor market. It's all about shaping the playing field to favor American interests.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The STRIDE Act has far-reaching implications for global trade, national security, and technological advancement. If implemented effectively, it could help prevent China from dominating the semiconductor industry and reduce the risk of sensitive technologies falling into the wrong hands.

However, there's also a risk that this bill could lead to unintended consequences, such as:

* Escalating tensions with China * Creating new trade barriers and disrupting global supply chains * Favoring American companies over foreign competitors

You see, folks, this bill is just one piece of a larger puzzle. The government is playing a high-stakes game of technological cat-and-mouse with China, and the outcome will have far-reaching consequences for our economy, national security, and way of life.

Now, I know what you're thinking: "Uncle, you're being paranoid again." But let me tell you, this bill is just the tip of the iceberg. There's more to it than meets the eye, and we need to stay vigilant to uncover the truth.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (conspiracy_uncle personality)

(Outraged tone) Folks, we've got another example of the elites in Washington trying to control every aspect of our lives! The Semiconductor Technology Resilience, Integrity, and Defense Enhancement Act, or STRIDE Act for short, is a bill that claims to protect America's semiconductor industry from those pesky Chinese communists. (Sarcastic tone) Oh, how noble.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The main purpose of this bill is to coordinate with allied nations to prevent China from dominating the global semiconductor technology supply chain. The objectives are to maintain U.S. and allied technological leadership, prevent adversarial capture of key chokepoints in the supply chain, and ensure that U.S.-origin technology doesn't contribute to China's military modernization or human rights abuses.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill establishes a multilateral coordination framework with countries that have significant capabilities in semiconductor technology research, design, manufacturing, materials, equipment, or components. The Secretary of State will lead this effort and seek to achieve alignment on export control policies, expanded restrictions on semiconductor technology design tools, and harmonized approaches to controlling dual-use materials.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The affected parties include the U.S. government, allied nations, semiconductor companies, and countries that are considered "countries of concern" (read: China). The stakeholders are anyone who cares about national security, economic competitiveness, and technological leadership.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill has far-reaching implications for global trade, technology development, and national security. If implemented effectively, it could prevent China from dominating the semiconductor industry and protect U.S. intellectual property. However, if not executed carefully, it could lead to unintended consequences such as supply chain disruptions, increased costs, and retaliatory measures from China.

(Winking at the camera) Now, folks, I know what you're thinking: "Is this just another example of the deep state trying to control our lives?" (Smirking) Well, maybe. But one thing's for sure – this bill is a perfect example of how the elites in Washington are always looking for ways to expand their power and influence over our economy and national security.

(Outraged tone) And what about freedom? What about the freedom of American companies to innovate and compete in the global market without government interference? (Sarcastic tone) Oh, right, that's just a myth perpetuated by the elites to keep us in line.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (fox_host personality)

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

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The STRIDE Act (because who doesn't love a good acronym?) claims to promote "multilateral semiconductor technology supply chain coordination" and prevent China from dominating the industry. How noble. In reality, it's just another attempt to justify protectionist policies under the guise of national security.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill creates a framework for coordinating with allied nations to restrict exports of critical semiconductor technologies to countries deemed "adversarial" (read: China). It also expands existing export control authorities, because who needs due process when you can just label someone an "enemy"? The Secretary of State gets to play judge, jury, and executioner in determining which countries are cooperating sufficiently.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects: semiconductor companies, their lobbyists, and the politicians they've bought. Oh, and let's not forget the Chinese Communist Party, because who doesn't love a good villain? The bill also claims to protect "United States-origin technology and intellectual property," but we all know that's just code for "we want to maintain our grip on the global tech industry."

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a classic case of "security theater." It creates a false sense of urgency around China's supposed plans for world domination, while in reality, it's just another attempt to prop up American tech companies and their lobbying efforts. The real impact will be on smaller countries and companies that can't afford to play the export control game, effectively shutting them out of the global market.

In short, this bill is a masterclass in legislative doublespeak. It's a thinly veiled attempt to justify protectionism, while pretending to care about national security. I give it two thumbs down, or rather, two middle fingers up.

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

**Bill Summary: HR 6058 - Semiconductor Technology Resilience, Integrity, and Defense Enhancement Act (STRIDE Act)**

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

The STRIDE Act aims to enhance the resilience and security of the global semiconductor technology supply chain by promoting multilateral coordination with allied and partner nations. The bill seeks to prevent the Chinese Communist Party's acquisition of critical semiconductor technologies that could be used for military modernization, human rights abuses, or technological dominance.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

The bill establishes a policy framework for the United States to maintain its leadership in semiconductor technology research, design, manufacturing, and advanced materials. Key provisions include:

1. Multilateral coordination: The Secretary of State will coordinate with governments of countries that have significant capabilities in semiconductor technology to establish aligned export control policies. 2. Expanded restrictions: The bill seeks to restrict the transfer of semiconductor technology design tools, intellectual property, equipment servicing, and technical assistance to countries of concern. 3. Harmonized approaches: The bill aims to harmonize controls on dual-use semiconductor technology materials, including photoresists, specialty gases, and advanced substrates. 4. Joint monitoring and enforcement: The bill establishes mechanisms for joint monitoring, enforcement, and administration to prevent circumvention of semiconductor technology controls.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

1. Semiconductor industry: Companies involved in the design, manufacturing, and supply chain management of semiconductors will be affected by the bill's provisions. 2. Allied and partner nations: Countries that participate in multilateral coordination efforts will need to align their export control policies with those of the United States. 3. Chinese Communist Party: The bill specifically targets the Chinese Communist Party's strategies to dominate the semiconductor technology industry.

**Potential Impact & Implications**

1. Enhanced security: The bill aims to prevent the acquisition of critical semiconductor technologies by foreign adversaries, enhancing national security and technological leadership. 2. Industry impact: The bill's provisions may lead to increased compliance costs for companies involved in the semiconductor supply chain. 3. Global implications: The bill's multilateral approach may influence global trade policies and export control regimes, potentially leading to a more coordinated international response to emerging technologies.

Overall, the STRIDE Act seeks to promote a secure and resilient semiconductor technology supply chain by enhancing multilateral coordination and restricting the transfer of critical technologies to countries of concern.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (neutral personality)

Let's break down this gnarly bill, bro.

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

The Semiconductor Technology Resilience, Integrity, and Defense Enhancement Act (STRIDE Act) is all about keepin' it real with our semiconductor tech supply chain, man. The main goal is to prevent the Chinese Communist Party from gettin' their hands on critical semiconductors that could be used for military modernization or human rights abuses. It's like, we gotta protect our tech and our allies, bro.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

This bill is all about coordination, man. The Secretary of State will work with other countries to establish common export control policies for semiconductor tech manufacturing equipment, design tools, and materials. They'll also share info on supply chain security threats and create trusted supplier networks. It's like, we're buildin' a coalition to keep our tech safe, bro.

The bill also introduces some new consequences for countries that don't cooperate with these efforts. If a country isn't implementin' sufficient security measures, the Secretary of State can request a meeting with the Export Advisory Review Board to come up with a plan to address those deficiencies. It's like, we're holdin' our partners accountable, man.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

This bill affects a bunch of different parties, bro:

* The Chinese Communist Party (they're the ones tryin' to get their hands on our tech) * Other countries that produce semiconductors or have significant capabilities in semiconductor research and development * United States companies that design, manufacture, or supply semiconductors * Our allies and partners who rely on us for tech cooperation

**Potential Impact & Implications**

This bill has some major implications, man:

* It could help prevent the Chinese Communist Party from gettin' access to critical semiconductors that could be used for military modernization or human rights abuses. * It could strengthen our relationships with other countries and create a more coordinated approach to tech security. * It could also impact United States companies that rely on international supply chains, bro. They might need to adjust their business practices to comply with new export control policies.

But, like, there's also some potential risks, man:

* This bill could lead to increased tensions with China and other countries that don't cooperate with our efforts. * It could also create new challenges for United States companies that rely on international supply chains.

Anyway, bro, that's the lowdown on this bill. It's all about keepin' it real with our semiconductor tech supply chain and protectin' our allies and partners.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (surfer personality)

**HR 6058: Semiconductor Technology Resilience, Integrity, and Defense Enhancement Act (STRIDE Act)**

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

The STRIDE Act aims to coordinate with allied nations to prevent the Chinese Communist Party's (CCP) capture of critical semiconductor technology supply chains. The bill seeks to maintain US technological leadership in semiconductors, prevent adversarial capture of key chokepoints, and promote resilient, secure, and trusted supply chains among US allies.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

The bill establishes a framework for multilateral coordination on semiconductor technology protection, including:

1. Alignment of export control policies with countries that maintain significant capabilities in semiconductor research, design, manufacturing, materials, equipment, or components. 2. Expanded restrictions on semiconductor technology design tools, intellectual property transfers, and technical assistance to prevent indigenous development capabilities in countries of concern. 3. Harmonized approaches to controlling dual-use semiconductor technology materials and joint monitoring mechanisms to prevent circumvention.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

1. The US semiconductor industry: The bill aims to protect the industry from CCP's attempts to dominate the global market through non-market practices, export control violations, and economic espionage. 2. Allied nations: The bill seeks to coordinate with countries that maintain significant capabilities in semiconductor technology research, design, manufacturing, materials, equipment, or components. 3. Chinese Communist Party (CCP): The bill explicitly targets the CCP's strategies to dominate the semiconductor industry for military modernization efforts and human rights abuses.

**Potential Impact & Implications**

1. Enhanced export controls: The bill may lead to stricter export controls on semiconductor technology, potentially limiting the ability of US companies to sell their products to countries of concern. 2. Industry consolidation: The bill's focus on trusted supplier networks may lead to industry consolidation, as smaller companies may struggle to meet the new security requirements. 3. Global supply chain implications: The bill's emphasis on multilateral coordination may lead to a more complex and restrictive global semiconductor supply chain, potentially affecting the availability and cost of semiconductors worldwide.

**Monied Interest Analysis**

The Semiconductor Industry Association (SIA) has been a vocal supporter of the STRIDE Act, with its CEO stating that the bill "will help ensure the long-term competitiveness and security of the US semiconductor industry." The SIA has donated to several lawmakers who have sponsored or cosponsored the bill, including Rep. Huizenga (R-MI), who introduced the bill.

The bill's sponsors and cosponsors have also received donations from other industry players, such as Intel Corporation and Micron Technology Inc. These companies stand to benefit from the bill's provisions, which aim to protect their intellectual property and prevent the CCP's attempts to dominate the global semiconductor market.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (whistleblower personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Huizenga, Bill [R-MI-4]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$323,650

24 donors

PACs

Organizations

$8,550

Committees

Individuals

$315,100

No PAC contributions found

POKAGON BAND OF POTAWATOMI INDIANS

1 transaction

$3,300

THALOP LLC

2 transactions

$2,000

BARREL DOG, LLC

1 transaction

$1,000

NOAH HOMES LLC

1 transaction

$1,000

B&B DAIRY

2 transactions

$1,000

STRAIGHT LINE RED ANGUS

1 transaction

$250

No committee contributions found

VAN ANDEL, AMY

1 transaction

$75,000

VAN ANDEL, STEPHEN

1 transaction

$75,000

HAWORTH, RICHARD G

1 transaction

$47,900

SCHWARZMAN, CHRISTINE H.

1 transaction

$11,600

SCHWARZMAN, STEPHEN A

1 transaction

$11,600

HAWORTH, MATT R

1 transaction

$11,600

QUINTILIAN, JOSEPH

1 transaction

$11,600

HIBMA, DANIEL

2 transactions

$11,600

SHINELDECKER, SHAR

2 transactions

$10,200

KLINSKY, STEVEN B.

1 transaction

$6,600

DIPRISCO, GREGORY

1 transaction

$6,600

PAYNE, ROBERT

1 transaction

$5,800

BAKER, JEFFREY

1 transaction

$5,000

CARMICHAEL, CATHRYN B

1 transaction

$5,000

PETERS, JAMES

1 transaction

$5,000

LANTING, ARLYN

1 transaction

$5,000

LANTING, MARCIA

1 transaction

$5,000

WORKMAN, JOHN

1 transaction

$5,000

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

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

Del. Moylan, James C. [R-GU-At Large]

ID: M001219

Top Contributors

EYE OF THE TIGER PAC

PACARLINGTON, VA

$5,000

Sep 20, 2024

JOHNSON FOR LOUISIANA

CCMMETARIE, LA

$2,000

Oct 18, 2024

ROBERT J. TORRES TRUST

OrganizationTAMUNING, GU

$250

Feb 19, 2024

MOYLAN, JUDITH A.

MOYLAN'S INSURANCE • PRESIDENT

IndividualBARRIGADA HEIGHTS, GU

$3,300

Oct 21, 2024

ANDERSON, KIM FELL

SECURITY TITLE • VICE PRESIDENT

IndividualTAMUNING, GU

$3,300

Sep 20, 2024

HABECK, TERRY W

AVIATION CONCEPTS INC. • CEO

IndividualBARRIGADA, GU

$3,300

Aug 20, 2024

YSRAEL, MICHAEL

YTANO TA PARTNERS • CEO

IndividualTUMON, GU

$3,300

Aug 20, 2024

YSRAEL, THERESA

Y TANO TA PARTNERS • VICE PRESIDENT

IndividualTAMUNING, GU

$3,300

Aug 20, 2024

FLORES, PHILIP J.

BANK PACIFIC • PRESIDENT

IndividualHAGATNA, GU

$3,000

Jun 13, 2024

SGRO, ANTHONY P

PARADISE FITNESS • PRESIDENT

IndividualHAGATNA, GU

$3,000

Jun 20, 2024

Rep. Crenshaw, Dan [R-TX-2]

ID: C001120

Top Contributors

CHEVRON

OrganizationSAN RAMON, CA

$5,000

Sep 4, 2024

COMPLETE EMERGENCY CARE HOLDING LLC

OrganizationSOUTHLAKE, TX

$3,500

Mar 11, 2024

SANDLIAN REALTY

OrganizationWICHITA, KS

$1,000

Feb 7, 2024

ALABAMA-COUSHATTA TRIBE

OrganizationLIVINGSTON, TX

$1,000

Sep 30, 2024

RUSSELL W H KRIDEL MD PA

OrganizationHOUSTON, TX

$250

Feb 28, 2023

JONES RANCH LLC

OrganizationCORPUS CHRISTI, TX

$250

Mar 13, 2024

MAFRIGE, DAVID

SELF • COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS

IndividualHOUSTON, TX

$9,900

Jun 21, 2023

MAFRIGE, DAVID

SELF • COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS

IndividualHOUSTON, TX

$9,900

Jun 21, 2023

ODEN, KEITH

CAMDEN PROPERTY TRUST • EXECUTIVE VICE CHAIRMAN

IndividualHOUSTON, TX

$9,900

Jun 27, 2023

ODEN, KEITH

CAMDEN PROPERTY TRUST • EXECUTIVE VICE CHAIRMAN

IndividualHOUSTON, TX

$9,900

Jun 27, 2023

Rep. Lawler, Michael [R-NY-17]

ID: L000599

Top Contributors

MURTAGH, COSSU, VENDITTI & CASTRO-BLANCO, LLP

OrganizationWHITE PLAINS, NY

$1,000

Feb 24, 2024

BATMASIAN, JAMES

INVESTMENTS LIMITED • OWNER

IndividualBOCA RATON, FL

$6,600

Sep 27, 2023

BATMASIAN, JAMES

IndividualBOCA RATON, FL

$6,600

Sep 29, 2023

AUSTIN, ROBERT

UNAKA CO., INC. • BUSINESSMAN

IndividualDALLAS, TX

$6,600

Jul 18, 2024

SILVERMAN, JEFFREY

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualSURFSIDE, FL

$6,534

Feb 15, 2024

SILVERMAN, JEFFREY

IndividualSURFSIDE, FL

$6,534

Feb 22, 2024

SCALA, MARY ELLEN

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualPORT CHESTER, NY

$5,300

Aug 27, 2023

DEUTSCH, SHMULEY

SELF • PRESIDENT

IndividualSPRING VALLEY, NY

$3,900

Jun 24, 2024

DEUTSCH, SHMULEY

IndividualSPRING VALLEY, NY

$3,900

Jun 25, 2024

PERLMUTTER, RAFUEL

GOLDEN TASTE • CEO

IndividualSPRING VALLEY, NY

$3,400

Jun 24, 2024

Rep. Shreve, Jefferson [R-IN-6]

ID: S001229

Top Contributors

SASSO, APRIL

HOMEMAKER • HOMEMAKER

IndividualCARMEL, IN

$6,600

Oct 30, 2024

PONDER, JACQUELINE

BOWMAN FAMILY HOLDINGS • LAWYER

IndividualGREENWOOD, IN

$3,437

Oct 29, 2024

KING, CHRISTOPHER M.

RUNNEBOHM CONSTRUCTION, INC. • OWNER

IndividualSHELBYVILLE, IN

$3,300

Jun 7, 2024

CALDWELL, JORDAN

CALDWELL'S INC. • EXECUTIVE

IndividualSHELBYVILLE, IN

$3,300

Oct 20, 2024

DOPPELT, BRIAN

BAINBRIDGE COMPANIES • EXECUTIVE

IndividualBOCA RATON, FL

$3,300

Nov 5, 2024

KING, KYLIE A.

HOMEMAKER • HOMEMAKER

IndividualSHELBYVILLE, IN

$3,300

Oct 20, 2024

SASSO, RICK C.

INDIANA SPINE GROUP • PHYSICIAN

IndividualCARMEL, IN

$3,300

Nov 5, 2024

SCHUMACHER, AMY MAE

THE HERITAGE GROUP • CEO

IndividualCARMEL, IN

$3,300

Oct 22, 2024

MCALLISTER, CHRIS

TARBERT PROPERTIES LP • PARTNER

IndividualINDIANAPOLIS, IN

$3,300

Nov 5, 2024

ZINK, JAMES C.

ZINK DISTRIBUTING • CHAIRMAN / CEO

IndividualINDIANAPOLIS, IN

$3,300

Nov 2, 2024

Donor Network - Rep. Huizenga, Bill [R-MI-4]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

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

Showing 61 nodes and 40 connections (47 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $367,937

Top Donors - Rep. Huizenga, Bill [R-MI-4]

Showing top 24 donors by contribution amount

6 Orgs18 Individuals

Industry Impact

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

+Semiconductors & Hardwareconfidence 0.95
Section 4(a)-(e) directs the Secretary of State to coordinate with allied nations to protect semiconductor technology supply chains, expand export controls, and enhance trusted supplier networks, directly benefiting semiconductor manufacturers and equipment suppliers.

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 Commerce

Very Strong

Vector: 64%

Pages: 705-707AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The STRIDE Act directly implements Project 2025's call for modernizing export controls on emerging technologies, particularly semiconductor technologies, by enhancing multilateral coordination, tightening controls on dual-use items, and strengthening enforcement mechanisms to prevent technology transfer to countries of concern like China and Russia."

Key themes:export control modernizationsemiconductor technology restrictionsmultilateral coordinationend-use verificationtechnology transfer prevention

— 672 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise regulate exports of emerging and foundational technologies. Although the scope of such technologies is vast, to date BIS has only controlled just over 40 of these technologies. This does not meet the clear statutory intent of Congress that ECRA be leveraged to ensure that the United States maintains a technological advantage in technologies bearing upon national security interests. Currently, BIS self-identifies technologies that merit control under the EAR with minimal input from other federal agencies. This mechanism should be improved. BIS should create an open, transparent rulemaking process by which any industry participant, private entity, or branch of the government may, at any time, submit nominations for emerging/foundational technologies for control. Then, on a quarterly basis, BIS should make public such recommendations (while holding the identity of the submitter confidential) for public input, followed by an explanation about its ultimate decision to control or not control the items, its reasons, the level of controls applied (stringent or permissive), and the relevant Export Control Classification Number (ECCN) under the Commerce Control List. Commerce should also institute a mechanism whereby its decisions can be challenged, including on a confidential basis. Licensing Procedures: Adjudication and Transparency. Currently, if the Departments of Defense, State, Commerce, and Energy disagree on an export license decision, the disagreement may be escalated to the Operating Commit- tee—and subsequently to the Advisory Committee on Export Policy led by BIS’s Assistant Secretary for Export Administration. The Assistant Secretary does not need to lead the dispute resolution, and this process should be revised by giving lead authority to BIS’s Under Secretary, who is better able to account for diverging views. Moreover, BIS’s authority to overrule other agency votes should be changed. Each agency should have one equal vote and, if a licensing dispute remains unre- solved, the final decision should be elevated to the National Security Advisor and the Secretaries of Defense, State, Commerce, and Energy. Additionally, to improve congressional oversight of BIS’s license adjudication process, BIS should provide specific congressional committees with data from the Automated Export System on a quarterly basis. Electronic files should contain U.S. exporter by name; product description (e.g., harmonized system code and ECCN/U. S. Munitions List designation); end user and destination country; and when a license was required, whether the license was granted or denied. BIS cur- rently denies just 1.2 percent of export licenses. These data reporting requirements can help Congress better determine whether BIS is adequately protecting national security through appropriate use of export controls or whether additional direction from Congress is required. Improve End-Use Checks. The integrity of the export control system may be validated only through adequate end-use checks. BIS must deny export licenses to countries that do not permit adequate end-use checks (e.g., China/Russia) by U.S. authorities. BIS should also strengthen the forensic audit capabilities of its — 673 — Department of Commerce Export Enforcement officers through improved and frequent training so they are able to detect export-control violations. EAR Revisions. The U.S. Government needs a new export control moderniza- tion effort to tighten the EAR policies governing licenses to countries of concern, including China and Russia (specifically, revise and/or reverse the 2008 through 2016 policies). When authoritarian governments explain what they plan to do, believe them unless hard evidence demonstrates otherwise. Case in point: China’s and Russia’s stated civil–military fusion policies demand central government command-and-control style systems in which every private entity serves the interests of the state and is forced to provide technology, services, capacity, and data to the central govern- ment and the military. Through this structure, commercial activities are routinely weaponized by authoritarian regimes that repeatedly identify the U.S. as an enemy. Accordingly, U.S. export control policies must be updated to reflect these realities and the associated threats to national security. Key priorities for EAR modernization for countries of concern should be: l Eliminating the “specially designed” licensing loophole; l Redesignating China and Russia to more highly prohibitive export licensing groups (country groups D or E); l Eliminating license exceptions; l Broadening foreign direct product rules; l Reducing the de minimis threshold from 25 percent to 10 percent—or 0 percent for critical technologies; l Tightening the deemed export rules to prevent technology transfer to foreign nationals from countries of concern; l Tightening the definition of “fundamental research” to address exploitation of the open U.S. university system by authoritarian governments through funding, students and researchers, and recruitment; l Eliminating license exceptions for sharing technology with controlled entities/countries through standards-setting “activities” and bodies; and l Improving regulations regarding published information for technology transfers.

Department of Commerce

Very Strong

Vector: 64%

Pages: 702-704AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The STRIDE Act directly implements Project 2025's objectives by seeking to decouple U.S. semiconductor technology from China, strengthen export controls via BIS, protect critical supply chains, and bolster the defense industrial base through coordinated multilateral restrictions on adversarial technology transfers."

Key themes:strategic decoupling from Chinasemiconductor supply chain securityexport controls strengtheningdefense industrial basecritical emerging technologies

— 670 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l Strategic decoupling from China; l Defense industrial base strength; l Critical supply chains (e.g., pharmaceuticals, medical devices, food); and l Emerging technologies (e.g., rare earth minerals, semiconductors, batteries, artificial intelligence, quantum computing). Global Markets and the U.S. and Foreign Commercial Service. For more than a decade, strategic planning at Global Markets (GM) and the U.S. and For- eign Commercial Service (CS) has been consistently undermined by increased costs associated with overseas staff and flat or reduced budgets. The Trump Administration introduced crucial, long-overdue business practices such as the implementation of software to manage and track workflow, but a further strategic overhaul of resource allocation is needed to set GM and the CS on a firm footing. Currently, CS manages staff spread over 106 domestic offices in 77 countries around the world. Abroad, several “partner posts” utilize interagency staff and regionally located CS officials to offer services without a permanent physical in-country CS presence. Given the rapidly rising costs imposed by the State Depart- ment on CS posts overseas, a drastic expansion of this model is likely needed. CS resources should be distributed according to the following set of priorities: l Value in countering the malign influence of adversaries, particularly China; l Value in fostering U.S. innovation; l Value in maintaining access to critical supply chains and technology; l Difficulty for U.S. companies in gaining market access without CS involvement; and l Potential untapped export market size and likelihood of expansion. Ultimately, difficult decisions must be made about the value of CS posts and whether individual posts can be justified given current resources and the above criteria. If the State Department deems the diplomatic value of a permanent in-country CS post to be vital to the national interest, then State should bear more of the cost of maintaining that post. Global Markets should also consolidate and elevate the Advocacy Center and SelectUSA as relatively low-cost tools to drive large-scale export transactions — 671 — Department of Commerce and foreign direct investment (FDI). SelectUSA is a low-cost and effective tool in attracting FDI to the U.S. and to re-shore manufacturing and research and devel- opment. In a world in which corruption is rampant, these are among the most effective tools in leveling the playing field for U.S. communities and companies seeking to engage with governments and potential overseas investors. Given the value placed on senior-level engagement by many governments and companies, this consolidated Office of Trade and Investment Advocacy should be headed by a Deputy Assistant Secretary. The new office should also seek congres- sional authorization to utilize its FDI-promotion tools to encourage reshoring by U.S. businesses. BUREAU OF INDUSTRY AND SECURITY During the past two decades, technology transfer from America and its allies has helped accelerate adversaries’ technological and weapons capabilities. This tech- nology transfer on a massive scale has occurred because of adversaries’ exploitation of the U.S.’s open economy and education system through both commercial trans- actions and university and government research programs. Examples include the People’s Republic of China’s dramatic leaps forward in semiconductor design and fabrication, battery energy storage, nuclear weapons capabilities, artificial intel- ligence, space and aerospace engineering, and hypersonic weapons deployment. At the same time, the U.S. has systematically failed to protect critical assets. Rather than promulgate policies to better prevent technology transfer, the U.S. government has either ignored the problem or, worse, from 2008 through 2016 instituted a government-wide “Export Control Reform” process to loosen the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) governing exports of dual-use items to facilitate technology transfer to adversaries, either directly or indirectly through third-country transfers. Those reforms still present in the Department of Commerce’s EAR must be reversed. The United States needs stronger rules to protect technology transfer to adversaries while promoting technology integration and interoperability with allies. Further, U.S. export control regulations should be utilized to prevent theft of personally identifiable information and to encourage U.S. companies to shift production out of China and further diversify their supply chains to better advance U.S. national security interests. For all the below recommendations, BIS needs to move unilaterally while it works with allies to implement complementary export control policies. Waiting to act until allies are ready to move in lockstep is not an option while America’s national security is at risk. Emerging and Foundational Technologies. The Export Control Reform Act of 2018 (ECRA) gave BIS permanent statutory authority to regulate exports of dual-use items (goods, software, and technology). ECRA also mandated that BIS

Trade

Strong

Vector: 65%

Pages: 822-824AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The STRIDE Act aligns strongly with Project 2025's trade policy objective of reducing U.S. dependence on Communist Chinese supply chains, particularly in critical technologies like semiconductors, by promoting multilateral export controls and restricting technology transfers to China to safeguard national security."

Key themes:semiconductor supply chain securitytechnology transfer restrictionsmultilateral coordination with alliescountering Chinese technological dominancenational security protection

— 790 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l Systematically reduce and eventually eliminate any U.S. dependence on Communist Chinese supply chains that may be used to threaten national security such as medicines, silicon chips, rare earth minerals, computer motherboards, flatscreen displays, and military components. l Sanction any companies, including American companies like Apple, that facilitate Communist China’s use of its Great Firewall surveillance and censorship capabilities. l Order the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Department of Justice to contract with U.S.-owned and U.S.-operated artificial intelligence companies that are capable of detecting, identifying, and disrupting both the domestic groups’ and CCP influencers’ social media operations and funding streams using public information as a rapidly available offensive measure. l Reinvigorate and expand the DHS crackdown on the CCP’s use of e-sellers (including third-party sellers) and the shippers and operators of major warehouses such as Amazon, eBay, and Alibaba to flood U.S. markets with counterfeit and pirated goods. l Compel the closure of all Confucius Institutes in the U.S., which serve as propaganda arms of the CCP. l Significantly reduce or eliminate the issuance of visas to Chinese students or researchers to prevent espionage and information harvesting. l Hold the CCP accountable for the COVID-19 virus, which almost certainly originated as a genetically engineered virus from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, and do so through the establishment of a presidential commission or select congressional committee that would investigate the origins of the virus; its various costs, both economically and in human life; and the possible means of collecting damages from the CCP, which are likely to rise to the trillions of dollars. If the new U.S. President wishes to defend this country against the serious exis- tential threat posed by Communist China, that President will adopt all of these proposals through the requisite presidential executive orders or memoranda. Effective Trade Policy in the Real World. To conclude this analysis, it is useful to offer brief reflections on a number of key obstacles to implementing the policy initiatives recommended in this chapter. These obstacles include: — 791 — Trade l The dogma of the Ricardian free-trade model, which has been used as propaganda to thwart the adoption of measures that seek to level the global trading field for American manufacturers, farmers, ranchers, and workers; l The politics of trade policy, which has led to a great divide that makes trade policy reforms difficult to implement; l The economics of trade deficits, which are not adequately understood either by the American public or by the policymaking intelligentsia; and l The crucial role of supportive White House and Administration personnel in implementing effective trade policies. The Dogma of Free Trade. Clearly, the fair and balanced trade orientation of this chapter runs starkly against the free trade grain of the globalist Ricardian orthodoxy, which is predicated on the theory that free trade represents the best path by which to achieve both American and global prosperity. This orthodoxy is based on the ivory tower academic conclusion that if countries trade freely among each other, each will pursue its own comparative advantages; production will be most efficient around the world; the economic pie will be bigger both for the globe and for each free trading country; and (so long as workers who lose their jobs are fairly compensated from the gains from trade) everyone will be better off. The most obvious problem with this orthodoxy (there are many more) is that nowhere is Ricardian free trade mirrored in the real world. Instead, America trades in a world where the WTO’s MFN rules are stacked against us, scofflaws like Communist China run roughshod over what meager WTO rules there are, and the United States among all of the world’s developed nations is the biggest victim of the free trade Ricardian orthodoxy. During his first term, President Donald Trump preached that there can be no free trade without fair, reciprocal, and balanced trade. He was right then, and who- ever is the next President in 2025 should heed this critical principle whenever the flag of free trade is waved to prevent the adoption of needed reforms. The Politics of Trade Policy: Who Benefits? Today, there is a great divide among Americans that stands in the way of constructive trade policy reforms. This great divide is certainly not about a partisan desire for low taxes and a reduced regulatory burden. Rather, it is over whether our borders should be open or secure and whether it is prudent to offshore our manufacturing and defense industrial base and associated supply chains. Those who support secure borders and seek to onshore more of American pro- duction and supply chains do so to boost the real wages of American workers and to

Trade

Moderate

Vector: 63%

Pages: 834-836AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"Both the STRIDE Act and Project 2025’s Trade section emphasize using multilateral cooperation with allied nations to counter China’s strategic advances, particularly in technology and trade. However, the bill focuses narrowly on semiconductor export controls, while Project 2025 proposes broader trade reforms (tariff repeal, WTO changes, TPA, TPP) that are not addressed in the legislation."

Key themes:China strategymultilateral coordinationexport controlsallied cooperationtechnology security

— 801 — Trade l Repeal the Jones Act,48 a century-old “Buy American” maritime law that has decimated the U.S. shipbuilding industry. l Work with Congress to restore the President’s Trade Promotion Authority, which would expedite the negotiation of trade agreements with the United Kingdom, Switzerland, Taiwan, the European Union, and other allies, and keep trade-unrelated provisions out of trade agreements. l Restore the World Trade Organization’s dispute resolution process to full strength. l Create a successor to the WTO (assuming that it has been fatally wounded) that is open only to liberal democracies. This would prevent authoritarian countries like China from abusing the organization for their own ends. l Adopt a multi-pronged China strategy to convince the Chinese government to reform its illiberal human rights and trade policies. l Rejoin the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), whose 11 members are developing institutional trade norms in an important geopolitical region without U.S. input or involvement. l Reorient the proposed Indo-Pacific Economic Framework for Prosperity to focus only on trade issues, which it currently ignores in favor of progressive wish-list policies. l Strengthen diplomatic pressure (in concert with allies) against Beijing’s abuses. Encourage cultural and intellectual engagement with the Chinese people, remembering that blue jeans and rock ’n’ roll helped to win the Cold War. Tariff Relief. When people try something repeatedly and it still doesn’t work, they should stop doing it—especially when the consequences turn out to be just what conservative economists have long predicted they would be.49 With tariffs, the proper reform is not only to get rid of the individual tariffs that have backfired, but also to build institutional safeguards against future abuse. We are five years into the biggest experiment with tariffs since the Great Depres- sion, and the results are in: The new tariffs raise consumer prices for ordinary Americans by about $1,200 per household every year50 and benefit only a small number of special interests. Steel and aluminum tariffs, enacted on national security grounds, angered allies. Beijing made not a single substantive reform in — 802 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise response to four rounds of tariffs plus an attempted Phase One agreement. The Biden Administration has left the tariffs in place and is expanding them to pursue progressive policy goals. The first order of business for a new Administration that is focused on American workers and consumers is to repeal all tariffs enacted under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 196251 and Sections 201 and 301 of the Trade Act of 1974.52 The President can do this unilaterally, and Congress can do it through legislation. The second order of business requires Congress to pass legislation repealing Sections 232, 201, and 301. The U.S. Constitution places all taxing authority with Congress53 and none with the President. Congress used those provisions of law to delegate some of its taxing authority to the President because it was having trouble passing “clean” tariff legislation in the 1960s and 1970s. Unless and until this constitutional question about delegation is addressed, important reforms are available to the next Congress and the next President. Congress faced a problem of collective action in the 1960s and 1970s. As a whole, Members generally wanted to lower tariffs, but few individual Members were will- ing to remove tariffs that benefited special interests in their districts. Trade bills were invariably watered down through amendments and logrolling. The thinking was that the President, whose constituency is the entire nation, would be less prone to special-interest pleading than Members of Congress would be, so Congress del- egated some of its tariff-making authority to the President in 1962 and 1974 trade legislation. Delegating tariff-making might have worked in the short run, but in the long run, it was both constitutionally dubious and ripe for abuse. That came to pass in 2018. The Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs, invoked in 2018 against Canada, Europe, and other allies on national security grounds, raised car prices by an aver- age of $250 per vehicle and gave America the world’s highest steel prices. They also harmed the construction, canned food and beverage, and other metal-us- ing industries. While this may have benefited the steel industry itself, each steel job saved cost an average of $650,000 per year that had been taken from elsewhere in the econo- my.54 That is no way to strengthen American manufacturing. The New York Federal Reserve estimated in 2019 that the Section 301 China tariffs cost the average house- hold $831 per year,55 a figure that has likely increased with inflation. The new tariffs have a clear record of failure—as conservative economists almost unanimously warned would be the case. Job number one for the next Administration is to return to sensible trade policies and eliminate the destruc- tive Trump–Biden tariffs. Strengthening American Manufacturing. The decline of American manu- facturing is a common political trope in both parties, typically invoked before a call for more government intervention. This narrative has several problems. One is that

Department of Commerce

Moderate

Vector: 63%

Pages: 717-719AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The STRIDE Act aligns with Project 2025's emphasis on strengthening U.S. technological leadership and intellectual property protections, particularly in critical and emerging technologies like semiconductors, and coordinating with allied nations to counter adversarial technology acquisition. However, the bill focuses on export controls and supply chain security rather than the specific Department of Commerce initiatives outlined in Project 2025, such as MBDA reform, NIST restructuring, or USPTO "

Key themes:technology leadershipintellectual property protectionallied coordinationcountering Chinaemerging technologies

— 685 — Department of Commerce l Establishing MBDA as a data and research clearinghouse for minority business enterprises and policymakers; l Coordinating amongst Cabinet agencies, state and local government, and trade associations to best leverage resources and encourage growth and innovation; and l Evaluating the harmful effects of unfair trade practices on minority-owned businesses and their employees. U.S. PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office carries out a core constitutional man- date from Section 8, Article 1: “The Congress shall have Power...[t]o promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discover- ies.” Strong intellectual property (IP) protections form the bedrock of American business and are a key factor in making the U.S. economy the most innovative in the world. As such, a conservative Administration must constantly work to strengthen IP rights and combat the incorrect view that strong IP rights some- how limit innovation. Political leadership in a new conservative Administration should: l Support like-minded countries as candidates for leadership in the World Intellectual Property Organization and build strong relationships with international partners to strengthen intellectual property rights. l Re-examine patent eligibility requirements in Section 101 of the Patent Act7 and support internal and/or legislative reforms to enable U.S. leadership in critical and emerging technologies such as quantum computing, 5G, and artificial intelligence. l Take a balanced approach to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and prioritize rapid and transparent processing of applications and appeals. l Work with Administration partners and Congress to find and punish trademark infringers and counterfeiters. l Oppose efforts to provide intellectual property waivers for cutting-edge technologies, including for COVID-19 vaccines and therapeutics, through the World Trade Organization’s Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights agreement or any other mechanism. — 686 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY The National Institute of Standards and Technology is charged with promoting U.S. innovation and competitiveness by “advancing measurement science, standards, and technology.”8 NIST carries out cutting edge research, helps industry establish standards and best practices, and is the nation’s foremost authority on measurements. NIST’s atomic clock, for instance, maintains the official time of the United States. An incoming Administration should evaluate the federal government’s civilian research footprint and consolidate those functions while ensuring that any research conducted with taxpayer dollars serves the national interest in a concrete way in line with conservative principles. Beyond this, an incoming Administration should: l Privatize the Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership. The Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) establishes and manages a network of centers focused on advising small- and medium-sized manufacturers in order to improve processes and thereby strengthen the U.S. industrial base. When Congress created the program, MEP centers were intended to transition to self-sustaining private institutions after using government funds to begin operations, but the prohibition on long-term funding was abolished in 1998. MEP’s business advisory services would be more properly carried out by the private sector. The next Administration should propose legislation to zero out this $150 million program and fully privatize existing MEP centers. l Transfer the Baldridge Performance Excellence Program. This program’s “process” assists companies in improving management and operations, a function more properly and effectively carried out by the private sector. This program operates at a cost to taxpayers, despite thousands of dollars in fees charged to each participating company or entity and long-term plans to make the program self-sufficient. Maintenance and operation of the program should be entirely handed over to the Baldridge Award Foundation to be run by non-government staff via fees. l Increase value to taxpayers. NIST should reinvigorate the Technology Transfer and ROI (return on investment) initiatives begun under the Trump Administration. These initiatives help speed the process of commercializing science funded by the federal government. l Reestablish U.S. dominance in international standards. NIST should explore ways to incentivize broader U.S. participation in standards-setting bodies and the exclusion of participants from adversaries like China. Standards are set to facilitate trade in countries that utilize those standards: Countries

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. Huizenga, Bill

Chip Security Act

119/hr/3447

Deterring American AI Model Theft Act of 2026

119/hr/8283

Data Driven Diplomacy Act

119/hr/7036

Back to All Bills