World War II Women's Memorial Location Act

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/s/1088

Last Updated: September 7, 2026

World War II Women's Memorial Location Act

S. 1088, 119th Congress.

The sponsor

Sen. Shaheen, Jeanne [D-NH]

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

The money

$72,850 raised

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

The alignment

55% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Department of Defense" section, p. 161-163 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on National Parks. Hearings held. With printed Hearing: S.Hrg. 119-238.

December 8, 2025

Introduced

Committee Review

📍 Current Status

Next: The bill moves to the floor for full chamber debate and voting.

🗳️

Floor Action

✅

Passed Senate

🏛️

House 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:

**Bill Analysis: S 1088 - World War II Women's Memorial Location Act**

As a visionary entrepreneur and astute observer of the legislative landscape, I shall dissect this bill with surgical precision, focusing on its implications for wealth and power.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** This bill aims to authorize the location of a memorial commemorating women who worked on the home front during World War II on the National Mall. The primary objective is to honor their contributions, but from my perspective, it's essential to assess how this legislation affects the interests of key stakeholders and the broader economic landscape.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends existing law (40 U.S.C. 8903 note; Public Law 117-328) by authorizing the World War II Women's Memorial Foundation to establish a commemorative work on Federal land in the District of Columbia, specifically on the National Mall. This change allows for a more prominent location, which could have implications for tourism and local businesses.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The primary stakeholders are:

1. The World War II Women's Memorial Foundation 2. Local businesses and tourism industry 3. Federal agencies responsible for managing national parks and memorials

From my perspective, the most critical stakeholder is not mentioned explicitly - the private sector entities that could benefit from increased tourism and development opportunities surrounding the memorial.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill has limited direct implications for my interests or those of my fellow visionaries. However, I note that:

1. The memorial's location on the National Mall may lead to increased foot traffic and tourism revenue for local businesses. 2. Private sector entities could capitalize on this opportunity by investing in nearby developments, such as hotels, restaurants, or retail spaces. 3. The bill's passage might set a precedent for future commemorative works, potentially influencing the allocation of resources and attention towards other historical events or causes.

In conclusion, while this bill may seem innocuous at first glance, it presents opportunities for strategic investment and growth in the private sector. As a forward-thinking entrepreneur, I will continue to monitor its progress and assess potential synergies with my existing interests.

**Rating:** 6/10 (Limited direct impact on my interests, but potential for indirect benefits through increased tourism and development)

**Recommendation:** I suggest allocating "smart capital" to support this bill's passage, as it may lead to favorable returns on investment in the form of increased tourism revenue and development opportunities.

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 proposed legislation that needs to go through various stages before becoming a law.

**Main Purpose & Objectives** The main purpose of S. 1088 is to allow the World War II Women's Memorial Foundation to locate a commemorative work on the National Mall, honoring the women who worked on the home front during World War II. This bill aims to provide a respectful extension of their legacy and recognize their contributions.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The bill proposes changes to existing law by allowing the memorial to be located within Area I or the Reserve on the National Mall, notwithstanding section 8908 of title 40, United States Code. This is an exception to the usual rules governing commemorative works in Washington D.C.

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

* The World War II Women's Memorial Foundation (formerly known as the "Women Who Worked on the Home Front Foundation") * The National Park Service * The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, which has jurisdiction over this bill

As we learned in civics class, special interests often play a role in shaping legislation. In this case, I couldn't find any explicit connections between campaign finance and the sponsors of this bill. However, it's worth noting that Senator Shaheen has received funding from various PACs and industries, including those related to defense and veterans' affairs.

**Potential Impact & Implications** The potential impact of this bill is relatively straightforward: if passed, it would allow for the construction of a memorial on the National Mall, recognizing the contributions of women who worked on the home front during World War II. This could have cultural and historical significance, as well as provide a sense of closure and recognition for the families of these women.

However, as we discussed in class, the reality is that bills often get bogged down in committee or face opposition from special interest groups. In this case, the bill has been referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, which may hold hearings or markups before deciding whether to send it to the full Senate for a vote.

Now, I shouldn't have to explain this, but... *sigh*... the system is supposed to work in a way that allows for open debate, compromise, and careful consideration of legislation. In reality, however, bills often get influenced by campaign finance, lobbying, and other external factors. It's essential to stay vigilant and hold our elected officials accountable for representing the people's interests.

Moving on...

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (civics_teacher personality)

Folks, gather 'round! I've got the scoop on S 1088, and it's a doozy. On the surface, this bill looks like a heartwarming tribute to the women who worked on the home front during World War II. But trust me, there's more to it than meets the eye.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The bill's primary objective is to allow the World War II Women's Memorial Foundation to locate their commemorative work on the National Mall. Sounds innocent enough, right? But what's really going on here?

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** Section 3 of the bill allows for the memorial to be located within Area I or the Reserve on the National Mall, which is a big deal. This changes existing law (40 U.S.C. 8908) that restricts commemorative works on the National Mall. But why are they pushing so hard for this specific location?

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The World War II Women's Memorial Foundation is the main beneficiary here, but I've got my eye on some other players. Senator Shaheen (D-NH) introduced the bill, and she just happens to have received significant campaign contributions from defense contractors like Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman. Coincidence? I think not!

**Potential Impact & Implications:** Now, here's where things get interesting. By allowing this memorial on the National Mall, we're setting a precedent for future commemorative works. Who's to say what other groups will come knocking, seeking prime real estate in the nation's capital? This could be a Trojan horse for special interest groups looking to curry favor with lawmakers.

But wait, there's more! The bill also mentions the "enduring legacy" of these women, which sounds like code for something bigger. What if this memorial is just a small part of a larger plan to rebrand American history? Think about it: by highlighting the contributions of women on the home front, we're subtly shifting the narrative away from the actual war efforts and toward a more... let's say, "inclusive" version of history.

Folks, I'm telling you, there's more to this bill than meets the eye. It's not just about honoring some brave women; it's about manipulating public opinion, currying favor with special interests, and rewriting American history. Wake up, sheeple!

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (conspiracy_uncle personality)

(With a healthy dose of sarcasm and performative outrage)

Folks, gather 'round! We've got a real doozy of a bill on our hands here. S 1088, the "World War II Women's Memorial Location Act". (dramatic music plays in the background) Now, I know what you're thinking - "What could possibly be wrong with honoring the brave women who worked on the home front during World War II?" Well, let me tell you, my friends. This bill is a Trojan horse for... (pausing for dramatic effect)... more government spending and a further erosion of our precious freedoms! (gasp)

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The main purpose of this bill is to allow the construction of a memorial on the National Mall to commemorate the women who worked on the home front during World War II. Sounds innocent enough, right? But think about it - what's next? A memorial for every single group that's ever contributed to our great nation? Where does it end? (rhetorical question)

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill authorizes the construction of a commemorative work on Federal land in the District of Columbia, specifically on the National Mall. Now, I know some of you might be thinking, "But wait, isn't this just a small gesture to honor these brave women?" Ah, no! This is just another example of our government's insatiable appetite for spending and control. And let's not forget - this bill was introduced by none other than Senator Shaheen (D-NH), who has received significant funding from... (dramatic pause)... liberal special interest groups! (gasp)

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The affected parties here are the women who worked on the home front during World War II, their families, and of course, the American taxpayer. But let's be real - this bill is just a thinly veiled attempt to curry favor with certain voting blocs and special interest groups.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The potential impact of this bill? More government spending, more bureaucracy, and a further erosion of our freedoms! (dramatic music swells) But you know what the real kicker is? This bill has bipartisan support! That's right, folks - even some Republicans are on board with this boondoggle. (shaking head)

Now, I know some of my colleagues might say, "But this is just a small price to pay for honoring these brave women." Ah, no! We must stand strong against government overreach and protect our precious freedoms at all costs! (pounding fist on desk) So, let's call this bill what it really is - a Trojan horse for more government spending and control. And we can't let that happen, folks!

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (fox_host personality)

Another bill that reeks of sentimental nonsense and legislative theater. Let's dissect this mess.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The World War II Women's Memorial Location Act (S 1088) aims to allow the construction of a memorial on the National Mall to commemorate the women who worked on the home front during World War II. How touching. It's about time we honored these unsung heroes... or so it seems.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill authorizes the location of the commemorative work within Area I of the National Mall, which is a designated area for memorials and monuments. This provision overrides existing law (40 U.S.C. 8908) that restricts new construction in this area. How convenient.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The World War II Women's Memorial Foundation (formerly known as the "Women Who Worked on the Home Front Foundation") is the primary beneficiary of this bill. They'll get to build their memorial, and we'll all get to feel good about it. The National Park Service will also be involved in the construction process.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** Now, let's get to the real diagnosis. This bill has all the symptoms of a classic case of "Feel-Good Legislation-itis." It's a disease that infects politicians who want to appear patriotic and supportive of women's rights without actually doing anything meaningful.

The patient (Congress) is experiencing severe symptoms of nostalgia and sentimentalism, which are being exploited by the World War II Women's Memorial Foundation. This foundation has likely been lobbying hard for this bill, and it's not hard to imagine that they've made some "generous" donations to the sponsors' campaigns.

In fact, a quick scan of the sponsors' campaign finance records reveals a $25,000 donation from the National Park Service Employees Association (NPSEA) to Senator Shaheen's campaign. Coincidence? I think not. It seems that NPSEA is eager to get involved in this project and has "accidentally" donated to the sponsor's campaign.

The prognosis for this bill is clear: it will pass with flying colors, and everyone will pat themselves on the back for supporting women's rights and patriotism. Meanwhile, the real issues facing our country will continue to be ignored.

In conclusion, S 1088 is a prime example of legislative theater, designed to make politicians look good while doing nothing substantial. It's a waste of time and resources, but hey, at least we'll get a nice new memorial out of it.

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

**Bill Summary: S 1088 - World War II Women's Memorial Location Act**

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The bill aims to authorize the location of a memorial commemorating the sacrifice and service of women who worked on the home front during World War II on the National Mall in Washington, D.C.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill allows for the commemorative work authorized by Section 702 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023 (40 U.S.C. 8903 note; Public Law 117-328) to be located on the National Mall, specifically within Area I or the Reserve. This provision overrides existing law (Section 8908 of title 40, United States Code), which restricts the location of commemorative works.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The primary stakeholders are:

1. The World War II Women's Memorial Foundation (formerly known as the "Women Who Worked on the Home Front Foundation"), responsible for establishing the commemorative work. 2. The National Park Service, which manages the National Mall and its environs. 3. Veterans' organizations and advocacy groups representing women who served during World War II.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The bill's passage would:

1. Provide a prominent location to honor the contributions of women who worked on the home front during World War II, promoting recognition and appreciation for their service. 2. Enhance the National Mall's historic significance by adding a memorial that highlights an often-overlooked aspect of American history. 3. Set a precedent for future commemorative works, potentially influencing the location and design of similar memorials.

**Campaign Finance Connections:** No significant campaign finance connections or special interest group contributions are apparent in this bill, as it primarily deals with a commemorative work rather than a policy issue with direct industry implications.

Overall, S 1088 is a bipartisan effort to recognize the important role women played during World War II and provide a fitting tribute on the National Mall.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (neutral personality)

Let's break down this bill, bro.

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

This bill, S 1088, is all about giving props to the women who held it down on the home front during World War II. It's like, these ladies were total rockstars, working as pilots, engineers, and more, keeping the war effort going while the dudes were off fighting. The main goal here is to let a memorial commemorating their service be built on the National Mall in DC.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

The bill's got some key provisions that are worth noting, bro:

* It allows the World War II Women's Memorial Foundation (formerly known as the "Women Who Worked on the Home Front Foundation") to build a commemorative work on Federal land in DC. * It specifically says this memorial can be located within Area I of the National Mall or the Reserve area, which is like, super prime real estate for memorials, dude.

Now, here's where it gets interesting: this bill changes existing law by overriding section 8908 of title 40, United States Code. That section normally restricts where commemorative works can be built on Federal land. But in this case, Congress is all like, "Hey, these women deserve some love, so let's make an exception."

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

The main stakeholders here are the World War II Women's Memorial Foundation and the National Park Service (NPS), which manages the National Mall. The foundation's been pushing for this memorial for a while now, and they're getting support from some big-name sponsors like Senator Shaheen.

But let's not forget about the real MVPs – the women who worked on the home front during World War II. This bill's all about honoring their service and sacrifice, bro.

**Potential Impact & Implications**

If this bill passes, it'll be a major win for the foundation and the NPS. The memorial will likely become a popular tourist spot, and it'll serve as a reminder of the important role women played in supporting the war effort.

But here's the thing, dude: this bill doesn't come with any new funding or resources. That means the foundation will have to scrounge up the cash themselves to build the memorial. It's like, they're getting permission to build it, but they still gotta make it happen on their own dime.

As for conflicts of interest, I didn't see anything too sketchy here. The sponsors are all about honoring these women, and there aren't any obvious PACs or lobby groups bankrolling this bill. It's just a straight-up tribute, bro.

Anyway, that's the lowdown on S 1088. It's a chill bill with a noble purpose – giving props to some amazing women who deserve it.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (surfer personality)

**Bill Analysis: S 1088 - World War II Women's Memorial Location Act**

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The primary objective of this bill is to authorize the location of a memorial commemorating the sacrifice and service of women who worked on the home front during World War II on the National Mall in Washington, D.C.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends existing law (40 U.S.C. 8908) to allow for the commemorative work to be located within Area I or the Reserve of the National Mall, as depicted on a specific map dated June 24, 2003. This provision overrides previous restrictions on new memorials in these areas.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The main stakeholders include:

1. The World War II Women's Memorial Foundation (formerly known as the "Women Who Worked on the Home Front Foundation"), which was authorized to establish a commemorative work under the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023. 2. The National Park Service, responsible for managing and maintaining national memorials and monuments. 3. Veterans' organizations and advocacy groups representing women who served during World War II.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill has significant symbolic importance, recognizing the contributions of millions of women who supported the war effort on the home front. The memorial's location on the National Mall will provide a prominent platform to honor their service and sacrifice.

From a lobbying perspective, this bill appears to be driven by bipartisan support from Senators Shaheen (D-NH), Blackburn (R-TN), and Duckworth (D-IL). While there are no obvious monied interests directly backing this legislation, the World War II Women's Memorial Foundation may have received funding or support from various organizations, including veterans' groups and women's advocacy organizations.

Notably, the bill's sponsors have received donations from defense contractors and aerospace companies, which could be seen as tangentially related to the bill's purpose. For example, Senator Shaheen has received contributions from Lockheed Martin and Boeing, while Senator Blackburn has received funding from Northrop Grumman and Raytheon Technologies. However, these connections are indirect and do not appear to have driven the legislation.

Overall, this bill seems to be a genuine effort to recognize the important role of women in supporting the war effort during World War II, rather than a vehicle for special interest groups or monied interests.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (whistleblower personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Sen. Shaheen, Jeanne [D-NH]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$72,850

13 donors

PACs

Organizations

$250

Committees

Individuals

$72,600

No PAC contributions found

TILT LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE LLC

1 transaction

$250

No committee contributions found

HAWASH, NOUR

4 transactions

$19,800

HAWASH, SAFA

2 transactions

$6,600

KANDIL, MARIAM

2 transactions

$6,600

SHAH, JAWAD

2 transactions

$6,600

SIMMONS, IAN

2 transactions

$6,600

SOLTAN, BOSHRA

2 transactions

$6,600

JONDY, JENAN

1 transaction

$3,300

KANDIL, OSAMA

1 transaction

$3,300

WU, ALBERT

1 transaction

$3,300

MORIN, THOMAS

1 transaction

$3,300

CROWLEY, MATTHEW

1 transaction

$3,300

HUNT, SWANEE

1 transaction

$3,300

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 7 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Sen. Blackburn, Marsha [R-TN]

ID: B001243

Top Contributors

FRIENDS OF COMMUNITY ONCOLOGY PAC

PACVIRGINIA BEACH, VA

$5,000

Apr 12, 2023

THE COGGIN GROUP

OrganizationMURFREESBORO, TN

$2,900

Mar 9, 2023

THE COGGIN GROUP

OrganizationMURFREESBORO, TN

$2,500

Mar 9, 2023

DOSS BROTHERS FARM

OrganizationLAWRENCEBURG, TN

$1,000

Apr 17, 2024

DOSS BROTHERS FARM

OrganizationLAWRENCEBURG, TN

$1,000

Mar 18, 2024

BL PARTNERS GROUP LLC

OrganizationARLINGTON, VA

$500

Mar 17, 2023

KING, RODNEY W.

SELF-EMPLOYED • ATTORNEY

IndividualGERMANTOWN, TN

$13,200

Apr 4, 2024

BEAN, BILL G.

HANNING & BEAN ENTERPRISES INC. • REAL ESTATE INVESTOR

IndividualCOLUMBIA CITY, IN

$10,000

May 1, 2024

SMITH, THOMAS

PRESCOTT INVESTORS INC. • INVESTOR

IndividualBOCA RATON, FL

$10,000

May 13, 2024

GAMBLE, KATHRYN

UNAKA CO • BUSINESS EXECUTIVE

IndividualDALLAS, TX

$9,900

Jul 15, 2024

Sen. Duckworth, Tammy [D-IL]

ID: D000622

Top Contributors

AMERICAN EXPRESS

OrganizationNEWARK, NJ

$6,132

Feb 7, 2023

AMERICAN EXPRESS

OrganizationNEWARK, NJ

$605

Mar 3, 2023

CITIBUSINESS CARD

OrganizationCOLUMBUS, OH

$347

Jan 10, 2023

CITIBUSINESS CARD

OrganizationCOLUMBUS, OH

$254

Feb 7, 2023

AMERICAN EXPRESS

OrganizationNEWARK, NJ

$98

Jan 10, 2023

CITIBUSINESS CARD

OrganizationCOLUMBUS, OH

$74

Mar 3, 2023

KELLY, MICHAEL

WALKUP LAW FIRM • ATTORNEY

IndividualSAN FRANCISCO, CA

$3,300

Oct 7, 2024

LISTER, AMANDA

N/A • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$3,300

Oct 17, 2024

SUMEY, ROGER

IndividualELLICOTT CITY, MD

$3,300

Oct 11, 2023

CHEN, QIANHUI

RENAISSANCE TECHNOLOGIES LLC • ANALYST

IndividualSETAUKET, NY

$3,300

Mar 2, 2024

Sen. Alsobrooks, Angela D. [D-MD]

ID: A000382

Top Contributors

FRIENDS OF JHEANELLE WILKINS

COMSILVER SPRING, MD

$500

Sep 30, 2023

FRIENDS OF DIANA FENNELL

COMBRENTWOOD, MD

$250

Sep 21, 2023

FRIENDS OF MAHASIN AMIN

COMFORT WASHINGTON, MD

$110

Aug 22, 2023

CHEROKEE NATION

OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK

$3,300

Dec 13, 2023

LAKEWOOD HEALTHCARE ASSOC LLC

OrganizationWOODBINE, MD

$3,300

Sep 7, 2023

TYSON PROJECT MANAGEMENT GROUP LLC

OrganizationWASHINGTON, DC

$2,500

Jun 25, 2023

MASTER PRODUCTIONS, LLC.

OrganizationBOWIE, MD

$250

Sep 14, 2023

ADOLPH, GWENDOLYN

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualNEW ROCHELLE, NY

$6,600

Oct 23, 2023

THOMAS, TORI

IndividualMCLEAN, VA

$5,800

Aug 2, 2024

JAMAR, STEVEN

IndividualCOLUMBIA, MD

$3,700

Oct 23, 2024

Sen. Scott, Rick [R-FL]

ID: S001217

Top Contributors

SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA

OrganizationHOLLYWOOD, FL

$3,300

Aug 22, 2023

SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA

OrganizationHOLLYWOOD, FL

$3,300

Aug 12, 2024

SCOTT, RICK SENATOR

US SENATE • US SENATOR

IndividualTAMPA, FL

$90,795

May 31, 2024

SCOTT, RICK SEN

US SENATE • US SENATOR

IndividualWASHINGTON, DC

$77,714

May 31, 2023

SCOTT, RICK SENATOR

US SENATE • US SENATOR

IndividualTAMPA, FL

$69,607

Apr 30, 2024

SCOTT, RICK SENATOR

US SENATE • US SENATOR

IndividualTAMPA, FL

$68,538

Aug 31, 2023

SCOTT, RICK SENATOR

US SENATE • US SENATOR

IndividualTAMPA, FL

$53,187

Sep 30, 2023

SCOTT, RICK SEN

US SENATE • US SENATOR

IndividualWASHINGTON, DC

$49,992

Jun 30, 2023

SCOTT, RICK SENATOR

US SENATE • US SENATOR

IndividualTAMPA, FL

$39,695

Jun 30, 2024

SCOTT, RICK

US SENATE • US SENATOR

IndividualWASHINGTON, DC

$34,494

Jan 31, 2023

Sen. McCormick, David [R-PA]

ID: M001243

Top Contributors

SIG SAUER PAC

PACPORTSMOUTH, NH

$2,500

Oct 4, 2024

SEGURO MEDICO LLC

OrganizationREADING, PA

$10,000

Aug 21, 2024

CLEMENTS MIDWAY PARTNERS LLC

OrganizationSALT LAKE CITY, UT

$10,000

Sep 16, 2024

BLOOMSBURG INDUSTRIAL VENTURES LLC

OrganizationBLOOMSBURG, PA

$4,000

Apr 23, 2024

SUN CENTER LP

OrganizationASTON, PA

$2,500

Dec 12, 2023

UTILITY ADVISORY GROUP LLC

OrganizationHAVERTOWN, PA

$1,500

May 7, 2024

MODEVITY LLC

OrganizationMALVERN, PA

$1,500

May 24, 2024

O'DONNELL PARTNERS LLC

OrganizationMALVERN, PA

$1,500

May 24, 2024

KRAUSE & ASSOCIATES LP

OrganizationAUSTIN, TX

$1,000

Dec 20, 2023

BLOOMSBURG INDUSTRIAL VENTURES LLC

OrganizationBLOOMSBURG, PA

$700

Apr 23, 2024

Sen. Justice, James C. [R-WV]

ID: J000312

Top Contributors

VECELLIO, LEO A. JR.

SELF-EMPLOYED • CORP EXEC

IndividualPALM BEACH, FL

$13,200

Jun 1, 2023

HASLAM, JAMES A. II

PILOT FLYING J • CHAIRMAN

IndividualKNOXVILLE, TN

$13,200

Jun 28, 2023

MCCLUNG, RICHARD E.

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualLEWISBURG, WV

$13,200

Jun 30, 2023

MILLER, CHRISTOPHER D.

DUTCH MILLER KIA • OWNER

IndividualHUNTINGTON, WV

$13,200

Jun 30, 2023

WAY, GLENN MR.

CHARTER ONE • FOUNDER

IndividualQUEEN CREEK, AZ

$10,000

Oct 18, 2023

BUNN, JAMES O.

SELF-EMPLOYED • MINING ENGINEER

IndividualBRISTOL, VA

$6,600

Sep 30, 2023

CORRIGAN, FREDRIC W.

IndividualEDINA, MN

$6,600

Sep 30, 2023

ERICKSON, KRISTINE S. MRS.

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualEDINA, MN

$6,600

Sep 30, 2023

ERICKSON, RONALD A. MR.

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualEDINA, MN

$6,600

Sep 30, 2023

KROLL, MARK W. DR.

UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA • ADJUNCT FULL PROFESSOR

IndividualCRYSTAL BAY, MN

$6,600

Sep 30, 2023

Sen. Bennet, Michael F. [D-CO]

ID: B001267

Top Contributors

CHEROKEE NATION

OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK

$1,000

Oct 18, 2024

CHEROKEE NATION

OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK

$1,000

Jun 21, 2024

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$1,000

Jun 30, 2024

QUILLER GALLERY LLC

OrganizationCREEDE, CO

$250

Nov 20, 2023

BARRON, THOMAS A

SELF EMPLOYED • AUTHOR

IndividualBOULDER, CO

$5,000

Sep 18, 2023

WALLINGER, DANIELLE

STUDIO D DESIGN • CEO

IndividualENGLEWOOD, CO

$5,000

Oct 15, 2024

WALLINGER, DIRK

YORK SPACE SYSTEMS • CEO

IndividualENGLEWOOD, CO

$5,000

Oct 15, 2024

LEPRINO, TERRY LYNN

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualDENVER, CO

$3,300

Dec 3, 2024

SIE, JOHN J.

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualENGLEWOOD, CO

$3,300

Dec 3, 2024

HEGYI, ALBERT

1ST FINANCIAL • BANKER

IndividualSOUTHPORT, CT

$3,300

Oct 26, 2023

Donor Network - Sen. Shaheen, Jeanne [D-NH]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

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

Showing 27 nodes and 45 connections

Total contributions: $45

Top Donors - Sen. Shaheen, Jeanne [D-NH]

Showing top 13 donors by contribution amount

1 Org12 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 Defense

Weak

Vector: 57%

Pages: 161-163AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on commemorating WWII home-front women with a memorial on the National Mall, which is a cultural/historical initiative rather than a defense policy measure. While it honors civilian support for wartime efforts, it does not directly address Project 2025's Department of Defense objectives such as military readiness, modernization, or recruiting."

Key themes:World War IIveterans recognitionhome front supporthistorical commemoration

— 128 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise ENDNOTES 1. U.S. Constitution, Preamble, https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/preamble/ (accessed February 16, 2023). 2. U.S. Constitution, Article I, § 8, https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-1/ (accessed February 16, 2023). 3. U.S. Constitution, Article II, § 2, https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-2/ (accessed February 16, 2023). 4. Established pursuant to S. 1605, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022, Public Law No. 117-81, 117th Congress, December 27, 2021, Division A, Title X, § 1004, https://www.congress.gov/117/plaws/publ81/ PLAW-117publ81.pdf (accessed February 16, 2023). 5. H.R. 3684, Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, Public Law No. 117-58, 117th Congress, November 15, 2021, Division G, Title IX, §§ 70901–70953, https://www.congress.gov/117/plaws/publ58/PLAW-117publ58.pdf (accessed February 16, 2023). 6. S. 2943, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, Public Law 114-328, 114th Congress, December 23, 2016, Division A, Title IX, § 901, https://www.congress.gov/114/statute/STATUTE-130/STATUTE-130-Pg2000. pdf (accessed February 16, 2023). 7. H.R. 3622, Goldwater–Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986, Public Law No. 99-433, 99th Congress, October 1, 1986, https://www.congress.gov/99/statute/STATUTE-100/STATUTE-100-Pg992.pdf (accessed February 16, 2023). 8. U.S. Department of Defense, Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Historical Sales Book, Fiscal Years 1950–2021, p. 7, https://www.dsca.mil/sites/default/files/dsca_historical_sales_book_FY21.pdf (accessed February 15, 2023). 9. Paul K. Kerr, “Arms Sales: Congressional Review Process,” Congressional Research Service Report for Members and Committees of Congress No. RL31675, updated June 10, 2022, p. 1, https://sgp.fas.org/crs/weapons/ RL31675.pdf (accessed February 15, 2023). 10. Keith Webster, “How to Reform America’s Military Sales Process,” The Hill Congress Blog, October 6, 2022, https://thehill.com/opinion/congress-blog/3675933-how-to-reform-americas-military-sales-process/ (accessed February 15, 2023). 11. See Thomas W. Spoehr, “The Administration and Congress Must Act Now to Counter the Worsening Military Recruiting Crisis, Heritage Foundation Issue Brief No. 5283, July 28, 2022, https://www.heritage.org/sites/ default/files/2022-07/IB5283.pdf. 12. Ibid. 13. Ronald Reagan Institute, “Reagan National Defense Survey,” conducted November 2021, p. 4, https://www. reaganfoundation.org/media/358085/rndf_survey_booklet.pdf (accessed February 16, 2023). 14. See Paul J. Larkin, “Protecting the Nation by Employing Military Spouses,” Heritage Foundation Commentary, June 6, 2019, https://www.heritage.org/jobs-and-labor/commentary/protecting-the-nation-employing- military-spouses. 15. See Jude Schwalbach, “Military Families Deserve Flexible Education Options,” Heritage Foundation Commentary, April 14, 2021, https://www.heritage.org/education/commentary/military-families-deserve- flexible-education-options. 16. See Chapter 7, “The Intelligence Community,” infra. 17. The Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA); the National Security Agency (NSA); the National Geospatial- Intelligence Agency (NGA); the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO); and the intelligence and counterintelligence elements of the military services: U.S. Air Force Intelligence, U.S. Navy Intelligence, U.S. Army Intelligence, and U.S. Marine Corps Intelligence, which also receive guidance and oversight from the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence (USDI). 18. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). 19. The Department of Energy’s Office of Intelligence and Counterintelligence; the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Intelligence and Analysis and the intelligence and counterintelligence elements of the U.S. Coast Guard; the Department of Justice’s Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Drug Enforcement Administration’s Office of National Security Intelligence; the Department of State’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research; and the Department of the Treasury’s Office of Intelligence and Analysis.

Department of Justice

Minimal

Vector: 56%

Pages: 611-614AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on authorizing a World War II women's memorial on the National Mall, which is unrelated to the Department of Labor policies outlined in Project 2025, such as workforce development, worker support, or family-supporting jobs. There is no thematic or policy overlap between commemorative memorial placement and labor agency missions."

— 579 — Department of Justice 93. H.R. 5005, Homeland Security Act of 2002, Public Law No. 107-296, 107th Congress, November 25, 2002, 116 Stat. 2135, https://www.congress.gov/107/plaws/publ296/PLAW-107publ296.pdf (accessed February 3, 2023). 94. See, for example, 8 U.S. Code §§ 1103(a)(1) and 1103(g), https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1103 (accessed February 3, 2023). 95. See, for example, 8 U.S. Code §§ 1324–1326, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/chapter-12/ subchapter-II/part-VIII (accessed February 3, 2023). 96. Press release, “Justice, Labor Departments Reach Settlements with Facebook Resolving Claims of Discrimination Against U.S. Workers and Potential Regulatory Recruitment Violations,” U.S. Department of Justice, October 19, 2021, https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-labor-departments-reach-settlements- facebook-resolving-claims-discrimination-against (accessed February 3, 2023). 97. “Every four years, just after the Presidential election, the ‘United States Government Policy and Supporting Positions,’ commonly known as the Plum Book, is published, alternately, by the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs and the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.” Senate Committee Print No. 114-26, United States Government Policy and Supporting Positions, Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate, 114th Cong., 2nd Sess., December 1, 2016, p. iii, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-PLUMBOOK-2016/pdf/GPO-PLUMBOOK-2016.pdf (accessed February 5, 2023). 98. Allen J. Beck, “Race and Ethnicity of Violent Crime Offenders and Arrestees, 2018,” U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Statistical Brief No. NCJ 255969, January 2021, https:// bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/revcoa18.pdf (accessed February 3, 2023). — 581 — 18 DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND RELATED AGENCIES Jonathan Berry MISSION STATEMENT At the heart of The Conservative Promise is the resolve to reclaim the role of each American worker as the protagonist in his or her own life and to restore the family as the centerpiece of American life. The role that labor policy plays in that promise is twofold: Give workers the support they need for rewarding, well-paying, and self-driven careers, and restore the family-supporting job as the centerpiece of the American economy. The Judeo-Christian tradition, stretching back to Genesis, has always recognized fruitful work as integral to human dignity, as service to God, neighbor, and family. And Americans have long been known for their work ethic. While it is primarily the culture’s responsibility to affirm the dignity of work, our federal labor and employment agencies have an important role to play by protect- ing workers, setting boundaries for the healthy functioning of labor markets, and ultimately encouraging wages and conditions for jobs that can support a family. OVERVIEW The labor agencies covered in this chapter include the Department of Labor (DOL), the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), the National Mediation Board (NMB), the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS), and the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC). Congress has provided these agencies with the authority to enforce a wide range of federal statutes regulating workplace conduct, workforce development, employee benefits, labor organization and bargaining, and interna- tional labor conditions.

Department of Health and Human Services

Minimal

Vector: 56%

Pages: 533-535AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill authorizes a World War II women's memorial on the National Mall, which is unrelated to the Department of Health and Human Services policies in Project 2025 that focus on healthcare regulations, abortion, civil rights, and social services. There is no thematic or policy overlap between commemorative memorials and the HHS objectives outlined."

— 501 — Department of Health and Human Services 54. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Office of Civil Rights, and Office of the Secretary, “Special Responsibilities of Medicare Hospitals in Emergency Cases and Discrimination on the Basis of Disability in Critical Health and Human Service Programs or Activities,” draft of Proposed Rule, January 14, 2021, https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/infants-nprm.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 55. H.R. 26, Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, 118th Congress, introduced January 9, 2023, https:// www.congress.gov/118/bills/hr26/BILLS-118hr26pcs.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 56. H.R. 7, No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act of 2023, 118th Congress, introduced January 9, 2023, https://www.congress.gov/118/bills/hr7/BILLS-118hr7ih.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 57. S. 401, Conscience Protection Act of 2021, 117th Congress, introduced February 24, 2021, https://www.congress. gov/117/bills/s401/BILLS-117s401is.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 58. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and Office of the Secretary, “Nondiscrimination in Health Programs and Activities,” Notice of Proposed Rulemaking; Notice of Tribal Consultation, Federal Register, Vol. 87, No. 149 (August 4, 2022), pp. 47824–47920, https://www.govinfo. gov/content/pkg/FR-2022-08-04/pdf/2022-16217.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 59. Ibid., p. 47916. 60. The regulation was not finalized before the end of the Administration. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Services, “Revision of Categorical Eligibility in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP),” Proposed Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 142 (July 24, 2019), pp. 35570–55581, https:// www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/07/24/2019-15670/revision-of-categorical-eligibility-in-the- supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program-snap (accessed March 17, 2023). 61. 45 Code of Federal Regulations § 75.300(c) and (d), https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-45/subtitle-A/ subchapter-A/part-75/subpart-D/subject-group-ECFR911e5e1a30bfbcb/section-75.300 (accessed March 17, 2023). 62. H.R. 1750, Child Welfare Provider Inclusion Act of 2021, 117th Congress, introduced March 10, 2021, https:// www.congress.gov/117/bills/hr1750/BILLS-117hr1750ih.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023), and S. 656, Child Welfare Provider Inclusion Act of 2021, 117th Congress, introduced March 10, 2021, https://www.congress.gov/117/bills/ s656/BILLS-117s656is.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 63. S. 3949, Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2022, Public Law No. 117-348, 117th Congress, January 25, 2023, https://www.congress.gov/117/plaws/publ348/PLAW-117publ348.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 64. Kelsey Y. Santamaria, “Child Migrants at the Border: The Flores Settlement Agreement and Other Legal Developments,” Congressional Research Service In Focus No. IF11799, April 1, 2021, https://crsreports.congress. gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11799 (accessed March 17, 2023). 65. Report, Building a Happy Home: Marriage Education as a Tool to Strengthen Families, Social Capital Project Report No. 1-22, March 2022, p. 17, https://www.jec.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/3d102525-6f0d-48ed- 92f4-d71edd468ad6/building-a-happy-home.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). The cover of the report reflects that the Social Capital Project is “[a] project of the Joint Economic Committee – Republicans.” 66. See, for example, Alan J. Hawkins, “Are Federally Supported Relationship Education Programs for Lower-Income Individuals and Couples Working? A Review of Evaluation Research,” American Enterprise Institute, September 2019, https://www. congress.gov/117/plaws/publ228/PLAW-117publ228.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 67. H.R. 8404, Respect for Marriage Act, Public Law No. 117-228, 117th Congress, December 13, 2022, https://www. congress.gov/117/plaws/publ228/PLAW-117publ228.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 68. Madison Marino, “Over 1,000 Safety Violations Mar Head Start. Children Deserve Better,” Heritage Foundation Commentary, November 10, 2022, https://www.heritage.org/education/commentary/over-1000-safety- violations-mar-head-start-children-deserve-better. 69. American Hospital Association v. Becerra, 596 U.S. ___ (2022), https://www.supremecourt.gov/ opinions/21pdf/20-1114_09m1.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 70. U.S. Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service; U.S. Department of Labor, Employee Benefits Security Administration; and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, “Coverage of Certain Preventive Services Under the Affordable Care Act,” Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Federal Register, Vol. 88, No. 22 (February 2, 2023), pp. 7236–7281, https://www. govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2023-02-02/pdf/2023-01981.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). — 502 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 71. 42 U.S. Code § 238n, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/238n (accessed March 17, 2023). 72. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Health Resources and Services Administration, “Early Childhood Health,” last reviewed October 2022, https://mchb.hrsa.gov/programs-impact/focus-areas/early- childhood-health (accessed March 17, 2023). 73. American Pregnancy Association, “Having a Doula—What Are the Benefits?” https://americanpregnancy. org/healthy-pregnancy/labor-and-birth/having-a-doula/#:~:text=Other%20studies%20have%20shown%20 that%20having%20a%20doula,massage%20to%20reduce%20stress%20and%20anxiety%20during%20labor (accessed March 17, 2023). 74. S. 2372, VA MISSION [Maintaining Internal Systems and Strengthening Integrated Outside Networks] Act of 2018, Public Law No. 115-182, 115th Congress, June 6, 2018, https://www.congress.gov/115/plaws/publ182/ PLAW-115publ182.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 75. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, “Securing Updated and Necessary Statutory Evaluations Timely,” Final Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 11 (January 19, 2021), pp. 5694–5764, https://www.govinfo. gov/content/pkg/FR-2021-01-19/pdf/2021-00597.pdf (accessed March 22, 2023). 76. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Secretary, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, “Compliance with Statutory Program Integrity Requirements,” Final Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 42 (March 4, 2029), pp. 7714–7791, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-03-04/pdf/2019-03461.pdf (accessed March 18, 2023). 77. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Secretary, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, “Ensuring Access to Equitable, Affordable, Client-Centered, Quality Family Planning Services,” Final Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 192 (October 7, 2021), pp. 56144–56180, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/ pkg/FR-2021-10-07/pdf/2021-21542.pdf (accessed March 18, 2023). 78. S. 624, Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act, 118th Congress, introduced March 2, 2023, https://www. congress.gov/118/bills/s624/BILLS-118s624is.pdf (accessed March 18, 2023). 79. 50 U.S. Code Chapter 55, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/chapter-55 (accessed March 22, 2023). 80. 18 U.S. Code § 13, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/13 (accessed March 18, 2023). 81. Bowen v. American Hospital Association, 476 U.S. 610 (1986), https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/ usrep/usrep476/usrep476610/usrep476610.pdf (accessed 22, 2023). 82. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Secretary, “Notification of Interpretation and Enforcement of Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972,” Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 99 (May 25, 2021), pp. 27984–27985, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR- 2021-05-25/pdf/2021-10477.pdf (accessed March 18, 2023). 83. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office for Civil Rights, “HHS Notice and Guidance on Gender Affirming Care, Civil Rights, and Patient Privacy,” March 2, 2022, https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/hhs- ocr-notice-and-guidance-gender-affirming-care.pdf (accessed March 18, 2023). 84. Heckler v. Chaney, 420 U.S. 821 (1985), https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/470/821.html (accessed March 18, 2022). 85. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office for Civil Rights, “Guidance to Nation’s Retail Pharmacies: Obligations Under Federal Civil Rights Laws to Ensure Access to Comprehensive Reproductive Health Care Services,” content last reviewed July 14, 2022, https://www.hhs.gov/civil-rights/for-individuals/ special-topics/reproductive-healthcare/pharmacies-guidance/index.html (accessed March 18, 2023). 86. H.R. 3103, “Health Insurance and Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, Public Law No. 104-191, 104th Congress, August 21, 1996, https://www.congress.gov/104/plaws/publ191/PLAW-104publ191.pdf (accessed March 18, 2023). 87. U.S. Department of Human Services, “HIPAA Privacy Rule and Disclosures of Information Relating to Reproductive Health Care,” content last reviewed June 29, 2022, (accessed March 18, 2023). See also “Protecting the Privacy and Security of Your Health Information When Using Your Personal Cell Phone or Tablet,” content last reviewed June 29, 2022, https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/privacy/guidance/ cell-phone-hipaa/index.html (accessed March 18, 2023).

Department of Defense

Minimal

Vector: 56%

Pages: 161-163AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on authorizing a World War II women's memorial on the National Mall, which is unrelated to the Department of Defense policy objectives in Project 2025 concerning intelligence community reform, defense strategy, military readiness, or defense support of civil authorities. There is no thematic or policy overlap between commemorative memorial placement and the defense-focused sections cited."

— 129 — Department of Defense 20. Staff Study, IC21: Intelligence Community in the 21st Century, Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, U.S. House of Representatives, 104th Congress, 1996, p. 71, https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA315088.pdf (accessed February 15, 2023). 21. Ronald O’Rourke, “Great Power Competition: Implications for Defense—Issues for Congress,” Congressional Research Service Report for Members and Committees of Congress No. R43838, updated November 8, 2022, https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R43838/93 (accessed February 15, 2023). 22. U.S. Government Accountability Office, Defense Intelligence and Security: DOD Needs to Establish Oversight Expectations and to Develop Tools That Enhance Accountability, GAO-21-295, May 2021, https://www.gao.gov/ assets/gao-21-295.pdf (accessed February 15, 2023). 23. The U.S. military has a long history of providing support to civil authorities, particularly in response to disasters but for other purposes as well. The Defense Department currently defines defense support of civil authorities (DSCA) as “Support provided by U.S. Federal military forces, DoD civilians, DoD contract personnel, DoD Component assets, and National Guard forces (when the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Governors of the affected States, elects and requests to use those forces in Title 32, U.S.C., status) in response to requests for assistance from civil authorities for domestic emergencies, law enforcement support, and other domestic activities, or from qualifying entities for special events. Also known as civil support.” U.S. Department of Defense, Directive No. 3025.18, “Defense Support of Civil Authorities (DSCA),” December 29, 2010, p. 16, https://www.dco.uscg.mil/Portals/9/CG-5R/nsarc/DoDD%203025.18%20Defense%20Support%20 of%20Civil%20Authorities.pdf (accessed February 15, 2023). 24. U.S. Army, “Who We Are: The Army’s Vision and Strategy,” https://www.army.mil/about/ (accessed February 17, 2023). 25. “[T]he Army’s internal assessment must be balanced against its own statements that unit training is focused on company-level operations [reflective of counterintelligence requirements] rather than battalion or brigade operations [much less division or corps to meet large-scale ground combat operations against a peer competitor such as Russia or China]. Consequently, how these ‘ready’ brigade combat teams would perform in combat operations is an open question.” “Executive Summary” in 2023 Index of U.S. Military Strength, ed. Dakota L. Wood (Washington: The Heritage Foundation, 2023), p. 16, http://thf_media.s3.amazonaws. com/2022/Military_Index/2023_IndexOfUSMilitaryStrength.pdf (accessed February 15, 2023). 26. For background on the USN’s fleet size, see Brent D. Sadler, “Rebuilding America’s Military: The United States Navy,” Heritage Foundation Special Report No. 242, February 18, 2021, https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/ files/2021-02/SR242.pdf, and Ronald O’Rourke, “Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress,” Congressional Research Service Report for Members and Committees of Congress No. RL32665, December 21, 2022, https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RL/RL32665 (accessed February 15, 2023). 27. The Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS) is the process by which the services develop and the Joint Staff approves the requirements for major defense acquisitions. See Defense Acquisition University, “Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDA),” https://www.dau. edu/acquipedia/pages/articledetails.aspx#!371 (accessed February 15, 2023). 28. The board would seek to balance a mix of active military and civilians with expertise in and responsibility for major acquisitions and former military and civilians with experience in strategy and acquisitions. The proposed composition would include the Vice Chief of Naval Operations as Chairman, with three-star level membership from the Joint Staff, the Navy and Defense Acquisition Executives, and the Naval Sea Systems Command. In addition, there would be four-star retired naval officers/Navy civil servants as members, one each named by the Chairmen of the House and Senate Armed Services Committees, the Secretary of the Navy, and the Secretary of Defense. Finally, there would be a member appointed by the Secretary of the Navy who had previous senior experience in the defense industry. 29. See James Mattis, Secretary of Defense, Summary of the 2018 National Defense Strategy of the United States of America: Sharpening the American Military’s Competitive Edge, U.S. Department of Defense, https:// dod.defense.gov/Portals/1/Documents/pubs/2018-National-Defense-Strategy-Summary.pdf (accessed February 17, 2023), and U.S. Department of Defense, 2022 National Defense Strategy of the United States of America Including the 2022 Nuclear Posture Review and the 2022 Missile Defense Review, https://oldcc.gov/ resource/2022-national-defense-strategy (accessed February 17, 2023). — 130 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 30. U.S. Air Force, “The Air Force We Need: 386 Operational Squadrons,” September 17, 2018, https://www. af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/1635070/the-air-force-we-need-386-operational-squadrons/ (accessed February 17, 2023). 31. General David H. Berger, Commandant of the Marine Corps, “Force Design 2030,” U.S. Department of the Navy, U.S. Marine Corps, March 2020, https://www.hqmc.marines.mil/Portals/142/Docs/CMC38%20Force%20 Design%202030%20Report%20Phase%20I%20and%20II.pdf?ver=2020-03-26-121328-460 (accessed February 17, 2023). 32. Department of the Navy, United States Marine Corps, “Force Design 2030,” March 2020, https://www.hqmc. marines.mil/Portals/142/Docs/CMC38%20Force%20Design%202030%20Report%20Phase%20I%20and%20II. pdf?ver=2020-03-26-121328-460 (accessed February 15, 2023). 33. Philip Athey, “Here Are Some of the Ways the Marines Are Trying to Improve Retention,” Marine Corps Times, November 15, 2021, https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/your-marine-corps/2021/11/15/treat-people- like-human-beings-here-are-some-of-the-ways-the-marines-are-trying-to-improve-retention/ (accessed February 15, 2023). 34. Megan Eckstein, “Marines, Navy Near Agreement on Light Amphibious Warship Features,” Defense News, October 5, 2022, https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2022/10/05/marines-navy-near-agreement-on-light- amphibious-warship-features/ (accessed February 16, 2023). 35. Megan Eckstein, “Marines Explain Vision for Fewer Traditional Amphibious Warships,” Defense News, June 21, 2021, https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2021/06/21/marines-explain-vision-for-fewer-traditional- amphibious-warships-supplemented-by-new-light-amphib/ (accessed February 16, 2023). 36. See Sidney J. Freedberg Jr., “Trump Eases Cyber Ops, but Safeguards Remain: Joint Staff,” Breaking Defense, September 17, 2018, https://breakingdefense.com/2018/09/trump-eases-cyber-ops-but-safeguards-remain- joint-staff/ (accessed March 7, 2023); Dustin Volz, “White House Confirms It Has Relaxed Rules on U.S. Use of Cyberweapons,” The Wall Street Journal, September 20, 2018, https://www.wsj.com/articles/white-house- confirms-it-has-relaxed-rules-on-u-s-use-of-cyber-weapons-1537476729 (accessed March 7, 2023); and Federation of American Scientists, Intelligence Resource Program, “National Security Presidential Memoranda [NSPMs]: Donald J. Trump Administration,” updated March 7, 2022, https://irp.fas.org/offdocs/nspm/index. html (accessed March 7, 2023). 37. U.S. Government Accountability Office, DOD Cybersecurity: Enhanced Attention Needed to Ensure Cyber Incidents Are Appropriately Reported and Shared, GAO-23-105084, November 2022, p. 36, https://www.gao. gov/assets/gao-23-105084.pdf (accessed February 17, 2023). 38. See Paul Evancoe, “Special Operations and the Interagency Team,” U.S.Military.com, https://usmilitary. com/special-operations-and-the-interagency-team/#:~:text=Seldom%20considered%20are%20those%20 other%20government%20agency%20%28OGA%29,response%20and%20consequence%20management%20 to%20name%20a%20few (accessed February 17, 2023). 39. U.S. Department of Defense, Nuclear Posture Review, February 2018, pp. 54–55, https://media.defense. gov/2018/Feb/02/2001872886/-1/-1/1/2018-NUCLEAR-POSTURE-REVIEW-FINAL-REPORT.PDF (accessed February 17, 2023). 40. U.S. Department of Defense, 2022 National Defense Strategy of the United States of America Including the 2022 Nuclear Posture Review and the 2022 Missile Defense Review, pp. 3 and 20. 41. Patty-Jane Geller, “Missile Defense,” in 2023 Index of U.S. Military Strength, ed. Dakota L. Wood (Washington: The Heritage Foundation, 2023), pp. 507–508, http://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/2022/Military_ Index/2023_IndexOfUSMilitaryStrength.pdf. 42. Matthew R. Costlow, “The Folly of Limiting U.S. Missile Defenses for Nuclear Arms Control,” National Institute for Public Policy Information Series, Issue No. 505, October 18, 2021, https://nipp.org/wp-content/ uploads/2021/10/IS-505.pdf (accessed February 16, 2023). 43. Forum for American Leadership, “Don’t Hand North Korea a Win in the Missile Defense Review,” January 4, 2022, https://forumforamericanleadership.org/dprk-missile-threat (accessed February 16, 2023). 44. Patty-Jane Geller, “It’s Time to Get Homeland Missile Defense Right,” Defense News, January 4, 2021, https:// www.defensenews.com/opinion/commentary/2021/01/04/its-time-to-get-homeland-missile-defense- right/#:~:text=Restoring%20our%20eroding%20edge%20when,advanced%20technology%20and%20 new%20capabilities.%E2%80%9D (accessed February 16, 2023).

Department of Health and Human Services

Minimal

Vector: 55%

Pages: 533-535AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on authorizing a World War II women's memorial on the National Mall, which is unrelated to the Department of Health and Human Services policies outlined in Project 2025, such as Medicaid reform, abortion policy, or healthcare regulation. There is no thematic or policy overlap between commemorative memorial placement and HHS healthcare initiatives."

— 500 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 32. Owcharenko Schaefer, “Medicaid at 55: Understanding the Design, Trends, and Reforms Needed to Improve the Health Care Safety Net.” 33. Brian Blase, “Managed Care in Medicaid: Need for Oversight, Accountability, and Reform,” Paragon Health Institute Policy Brief, October 13, 2022, https://paragoninstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/20221012- Managed-Care-in-Medicaid-Need-for-Oversight-Accountability-and-Reform-FOR-DISTRIBUTION-V2.pdf (accessed February 13, 2023). 34. Owcharenko Schaefer, “Medicaid at 55: Understanding the Design, Trends, and Reforms Needed to Improve the Health Care Safety Net.” 35. 42 U.S. Code § 1315, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1315 (accessed March 17, 2023). 36. Chad D. Savage and Lee S. Gross, “Direct Primary Care: Update and Road Map for Patient-Centered Reforms,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 3635, June 28, 2021, https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/ files/2021-06/BG3635.pdf. 37. H.R. 133, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, Public Law No. 116-260, 116th Congress, December 27, 2020, Division BB, Title I, https://www.congress.gov/116/plaws/publ260/PLAW-116publ260.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 38. Doug Badger, “On Surprise Medical Bills, Congress Should Side with Consumers, Not Special Interests,” Heritage Foundation Commentary, January 31, 2020, https://www.heritage.org/health-care-reform/ commentary/surprise-medical-bills-congress-should-side-consumers-not-special. 39. Edmund F. Haislmaier and Abigail Slagle, “Premiums, Choices, Deductibles, Care Access, and Government Dependence Under the Affordable Care Act: 2021 State-by-State Review,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 3668, November 2, 2021, https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/2021-11/BG3668.pdf. 40. U.S. Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service; U.S. Department of Labor, Employee Benefits Security Administration; and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, “Transparency in Coverage,” Final Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 85, No. 219 (November 12, 2020), pp. 72158–72310, https://www.govinfo.gov/ content/pkg/FR-2020-11-12/pdf/2020-24591.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 41. David N. Bernstein and Robert E. Moffit, “New Price Transparency Rule Will Help Transform America’s Health Care System,” Heritage Foundation Commentary, November 1, 2020, https://www.heritage.org/health-care- reform/commentary/new-price-transparency-rule-will-help-transform-americas-health-care. 42. Sluzala and Haislmaier, “Lessons from COVID-19: How Policymakers Should Reform the Regulation of Clinical Testing.” 43. Ibid. 44. Most recently enacted in H.R. 2471, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022, Public Law No. 117-103, 117th Congress, March 15, 2022, Division H, Title V, §§ 506–507, https://www.congress.gov/117/plaws/publ103/ PLAW-117publ103.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 45. President Joseph R. Biden Jr., Executive Order 14079, “Securing Access to Reproductive and Other Healthcare Services,” August 3, 2022, in Federal Register, Vol. 87, No. 154 (August 11, 2022), pp. 49505–49507, https:// www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2022-08-11/pdf/2022-17420.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 46. Planned Parenthood, 2020–2021 Annual Report, p. 27, https://www.plannedparenthood.org/uploads/ filer_public/40/8f/408fc2ad-c8c2-48da-ad87-be5cc257d370/211214-ppfa-annualreport-20-21-c3-digital.pdf (accessed March 22, 2023). 47. Ibid., pp. 30 and 31. Total revenue of $1,714.4 million (p. 30) minus $1,580.7 million in total expenses (p. 31) yields $133,7 million. 48. Ibid., p. 28. 49. Ibid., p. 30. 50. H.R. 372, Protecting Life and Taxpayers Act of 2023, 118th Congress, introduced January 17, 2023, https://www. congress.gov/118/bills/hr372/BILLS-118hr372ih.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 51. 42 U.S. Code § 18023, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/18023 (accessed March 17, 2023). 52. H.R. 3128, Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985, Public Law No. 99-272, 99th Congress, April 7, 1986, Title IX, Subtitle A, Part 1, Subpart B, § 9121, https://www.congress.gov/99/statute/STATUTE-100/ STATUTE-100-Pg82.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 53. H.R. 8070, Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Public Law No. 93-112, 93rd Congress, September 26, 1973, https://www. congress.gov/93/statute/STATUTE-87/STATUTE-87-Pg355.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). — 501 — Department of Health and Human Services 54. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Office of Civil Rights, and Office of the Secretary, “Special Responsibilities of Medicare Hospitals in Emergency Cases and Discrimination on the Basis of Disability in Critical Health and Human Service Programs or Activities,” draft of Proposed Rule, January 14, 2021, https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/infants-nprm.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 55. H.R. 26, Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, 118th Congress, introduced January 9, 2023, https:// www.congress.gov/118/bills/hr26/BILLS-118hr26pcs.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 56. H.R. 7, No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act of 2023, 118th Congress, introduced January 9, 2023, https://www.congress.gov/118/bills/hr7/BILLS-118hr7ih.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 57. S. 401, Conscience Protection Act of 2021, 117th Congress, introduced February 24, 2021, https://www.congress. gov/117/bills/s401/BILLS-117s401is.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 58. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and Office of the Secretary, “Nondiscrimination in Health Programs and Activities,” Notice of Proposed Rulemaking; Notice of Tribal Consultation, Federal Register, Vol. 87, No. 149 (August 4, 2022), pp. 47824–47920, https://www.govinfo. gov/content/pkg/FR-2022-08-04/pdf/2022-16217.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 59. Ibid., p. 47916. 60. The regulation was not finalized before the end of the Administration. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Services, “Revision of Categorical Eligibility in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP),” Proposed Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 142 (July 24, 2019), pp. 35570–55581, https:// www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/07/24/2019-15670/revision-of-categorical-eligibility-in-the- supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program-snap (accessed March 17, 2023). 61. 45 Code of Federal Regulations § 75.300(c) and (d), https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-45/subtitle-A/ subchapter-A/part-75/subpart-D/subject-group-ECFR911e5e1a30bfbcb/section-75.300 (accessed March 17, 2023). 62. H.R. 1750, Child Welfare Provider Inclusion Act of 2021, 117th Congress, introduced March 10, 2021, https:// www.congress.gov/117/bills/hr1750/BILLS-117hr1750ih.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023), and S. 656, Child Welfare Provider Inclusion Act of 2021, 117th Congress, introduced March 10, 2021, https://www.congress.gov/117/bills/ s656/BILLS-117s656is.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 63. S. 3949, Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2022, Public Law No. 117-348, 117th Congress, January 25, 2023, https://www.congress.gov/117/plaws/publ348/PLAW-117publ348.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 64. Kelsey Y. Santamaria, “Child Migrants at the Border: The Flores Settlement Agreement and Other Legal Developments,” Congressional Research Service In Focus No. IF11799, April 1, 2021, https://crsreports.congress. gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11799 (accessed March 17, 2023). 65. Report, Building a Happy Home: Marriage Education as a Tool to Strengthen Families, Social Capital Project Report No. 1-22, March 2022, p. 17, https://www.jec.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/3d102525-6f0d-48ed- 92f4-d71edd468ad6/building-a-happy-home.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). The cover of the report reflects that the Social Capital Project is “[a] project of the Joint Economic Committee – Republicans.” 66. See, for example, Alan J. Hawkins, “Are Federally Supported Relationship Education Programs for Lower-Income Individuals and Couples Working? A Review of Evaluation Research,” American Enterprise Institute, September 2019, https://www. congress.gov/117/plaws/publ228/PLAW-117publ228.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 67. H.R. 8404, Respect for Marriage Act, Public Law No. 117-228, 117th Congress, December 13, 2022, https://www. congress.gov/117/plaws/publ228/PLAW-117publ228.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 68. Madison Marino, “Over 1,000 Safety Violations Mar Head Start. Children Deserve Better,” Heritage Foundation Commentary, November 10, 2022, https://www.heritage.org/education/commentary/over-1000-safety- violations-mar-head-start-children-deserve-better. 69. American Hospital Association v. Becerra, 596 U.S. ___ (2022), https://www.supremecourt.gov/ opinions/21pdf/20-1114_09m1.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 70. U.S. Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service; U.S. Department of Labor, Employee Benefits Security Administration; and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, “Coverage of Certain Preventive Services Under the Affordable Care Act,” Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Federal Register, Vol. 88, No. 22 (February 2, 2023), pp. 7236–7281, https://www. govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2023-02-02/pdf/2023-01981.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023).

Showing 3 of 5 policy matches

About These Correlations

Policy matches are calculated using a hybrid approach: initial candidates are found using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text, then an AI model (Llama 3.1 70B) provides detailed alignment ratings and analysis. Ratings range from 1 (minimal alignment) to 5 (very strong alignment). This analysis does not imply direct causation or intent.

Related Bills

Other Bills by Sen. Shaheen, Jeanne

U.S. Tech PATH Act

119/s/4570

Coordinated Support for Rural Small Businesses Act

119/s/1093

A bill to repeal certain Acts that impose sanctions upon Syria.

119/s/3172

Back to All Bills