Quapaw Tribal Settlement Act of 2025

Download PDF
Bill ID: 119/s/630
Last Updated: January 1, 1970

Sponsored by

Sen. Mullin, Markwayne [R-OK]

ID: M001190

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

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 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

Another exercise in legislative theater, courtesy of our esteemed Congress. Let's dissect this farce, shall we?

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The Quapaw Tribal Settlement Act of 2025 is a masterclass in bureaucratic doublespeak. Ostensibly, it aims to provide a settlement to the Quapaw Nation and certain members for... well, that's not entirely clear from the bill itself. But don't worry, I'll get to the real purpose later.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill establishes a Special Deposit Account (because who doesn't love a good slush fund?) to hold $137.5 million in settlement funds. The Secretary of the Interior will administer these funds, because that's not a recipe for disaster. The bill also sets up a mediation process for distributing the funds among claimants, which is just a fancy way of saying "we'll let them fight over it."

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The Quapaw Nation and its members are the nominal beneficiaries of this settlement. But let's be real, they're not the ones who will truly benefit from this bill. The real winners are the politicians and bureaucrats who get to pat themselves on the back for "helping" Native Americans while lining their own pockets.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a textbook example of legislative malpractice. It's a payoff to special interests, wrapped in a veneer of altruism. The real disease here is corruption, and this bill is just a symptom. By creating a slush fund and empowering bureaucrats to distribute it, Congress is essentially saying, "Hey, we trust our friends at the Interior Department to do the right thing... with your money."

But what's really going on here? This bill is likely the result of backroom deals between politicians, lobbyists, and tribal leaders. The Quapaw Nation gets a settlement, but at what cost? The real cost will be borne by taxpayers, who will foot the bill for this boondoggle.

In medical terms, this bill is like prescribing a placebo to a patient with a terminal illness. It might make everyone feel good in the short term, but it won't address the underlying disease. And when the dust settles, we'll be left with more corruption, more waste, and more of the same old politics as usual.

Diagnosis: Legislative Corruption Syndrome (LCS). Treatment: transparency, accountability, and a healthy dose of skepticism towards our elected officials. Prognosis: poor, unless we demand better from our government.

Related Topics

Transportation & Infrastructure Small Business & Entrepreneurship Civil Rights & Liberties Criminal Justice & Law Enforcement Congressional Rules & Procedures Government Operations & Accountability State & Local Government Affairs Federal Budget & Appropriations National Security & Intelligence
Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Sen. Mullin, Markwayne [R-OK]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions
$432,800
204 donors
PACs
$0
Organizations
$66,900
Committees
$0
Individuals
$365,900

No PAC contributions found

1
HABEMATOLEL POMO OF UPPER LAKE INDIAN TRIBE
2 transactions
$6,600
2
MIAMI TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA
2 transactions
$6,600
3
SNOQUALMIE TRIBE
2 transactions
$6,600
4
POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS
2 transactions
$6,000
5
MATCH-E-BE-NASH-SHE-WISH BAND OF POTTAWATOMI INDIANS
2 transactions
$5,000
6
MUSCOGEE CREEK NATION
1 transaction
$3,300
7
THE CHICKASAW NATION
1 transaction
$3,300
8
OTOE MISSOURIA TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA
1 transaction
$3,000
9
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
2 transactions
$3,000
10
AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS
1 transaction
$2,900
11
AK-CHIN INDIAN COMMUNITY
1 transaction
$2,900
12
PALA BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
1 transaction
$2,900
13
THE UTE INDIAN TRIBE
1 transaction
$2,800
14
SAN MANUEL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
1 transaction
$2,500
15
SYCUAN BAND OF THE KUMEYAAY NATION
1 transaction
$2,500
16
ONEIDA NATION
1 transaction
$2,000
17
PUYALLUP TRIBE OF INDIANS
2 transactions
$2,000
18
MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
1 transaction
$1,500
19
SENECA NATION OF INDIANS
1 transaction
$1,000
20
CHOCTAW NATION
1 transaction
$500

No committee contributions found

1
KIMBER, SHELDON
4 transactions
$12,000
2
GARVER, C M
3 transactions
$10,300
3
NAGEL, RICK R. MR.
2 transactions
$8,300
4
GAYLOR, JOHN R.
2 transactions
$7,100
5
MILLER, JEFFREY
2 transactions
$7,100
6
BUERGER, ALAN
2 transactions
$6,600
7
CROTTY, THOMAS
2 transactions
$6,600
8
EVANS, ROGER
2 transactions
$6,600
9
MCCALL, CHARLES
2 transactions
$6,600
10
MCCALL, CHARLES A.
2 transactions
$6,600
11
MCCALL, CLAY
2 transactions
$6,600
12
MCDAVID, CARLY
2 transactions
$6,600
13
MCKNIGHT, DREW
2 transactions
$6,600
14
PEMBERTON, LEWIS PECK
2 transactions
$6,600
15
STONE, SHELDON
2 transactions
$6,600
16
WALTON, S. ROBSON
2 transactions
$6,600
17
WEBB, DAN
2 transactions
$6,600
18
WEINER, KANE
2 transactions
$6,600
19
GRAY, C. BOYDEN
2 transactions
$5,000
20
MARTIN, JOHN
2 transactions
$5,000
21
MACKINNON, JEFFREY M MR.
3 transactions
$3,500
22
BURRAGE, STEVE MR.
1 transaction
$3,300
23
BURRAGE, STEVEN MARK
1 transaction
$3,300
24
FIELDS, JACK
1 transaction
$3,300
25
HOLLAND, LUCAS
1 transaction
$3,300
26
LANCE, BILL G. MR.
1 transaction
$3,300
27
MAYER, TONY
1 transaction
$3,300
28
MCCALL, CARSON HAYS
1 transaction
$3,300
29
MCCALL, CHARLES IV
1 transaction
$3,300
30
MCKEE, JACK MR.
1 transaction
$3,300
31
NIXON, DENNIS
1 transaction
$3,300
32
NORMAN, DAVID
1 transaction
$3,300
33
OSTER, ROBERT
1 transaction
$3,300
34
LAZARSKI, ANTHONY J. MR.
2 transactions
$3,000
35
BODE, JOHN MR.
1 transaction
$2,900
36
CAI, PING
1 transaction
$2,900
37
DU, ZHENG
1 transaction
$2,900
38
FLATT, RAYMOND
1 transaction
$2,900
39
FLINN, ELDON MR.
1 transaction
$2,900
40
FLOWERS, CHRIS MR.
1 transaction
$2,900
41
GUO, MEIRONG
1 transaction
$2,900
42
HATTON, DAVID DWAYNE MR.
1 transaction
$2,900
43
LEVINSON, LEE I. MR.
1 transaction
$2,900
44
LIU, HUIYING
1 transaction
$2,900
45
NI, YUN FENG
1 transaction
$2,900
46
TAYLOR, BRUCE
1 transaction
$2,900
47
WILEY, LAWRENCE
1 transaction
$2,900
48
ZHOU, YUAN
1 transaction
$2,900
49
BUERGE, ROBIN
1 transaction
$2,500
50
CURTIS, CHANDA
1 transaction
$2,500
51
DERDERIAN, JAMES MR.
1 transaction
$2,500
52
GEDULDIG, SAM MR.
1 transaction
$2,500
53
HAUCK, MEGAN
1 transaction
$2,500
54
JOHNSON, H. FISK
1 transaction
$2,500
55
RICHARDS, JIM
1 transaction
$2,500
56
RITTER, RYAN MR.
1 transaction
$2,500
57
SMITH, LARRY
1 transaction
$2,500
58
STERNFELS, ROBERT
1 transaction
$2,500
59
STIPICEVIC, JOHN
1 transaction
$2,500
60
FIELD, MARSHALL
1 transaction
$2,000
61
FORBES, ANDREW
1 transaction
$2,000
62
GUIDA, ALFONSO MR. JR.
2 transactions
$2,000
63
JOYCE, SEAN
2 transactions
$2,000
64
LINK, TUCKER
1 transaction
$2,000
65
MARSHALL, MICHAEL
1 transaction
$2,000
66
POPP, MONICA
2 transactions
$2,000
67
SHUMWAY, CHAD
1 transaction
$2,000
68
ARNDT, MICHAEL
1 transaction
$1,500
69
BARKER, GUY
1 transaction
$1,500
70
BOLIN, BILL
1 transaction
$1,500
71
BRAVO, MATTHEW
1 transaction
$1,500
72
GAILEY, MARK M. MR.
1 transaction
$1,500
73
HILER, JONATHAN
2 transactions
$1,500
74
HIRSHEY, KEN
1 transaction
$1,500
75
JACKSON, RYAN
1 transaction
$1,500
76
MAGALLANES, NICOLAS
1 transaction
$1,500
77
PAC, SNC
1 transaction
$1,500
78
WHITE, JOEL MR.
1 transaction
$1,500
79
WOLF, JOSEPH
1 transaction
$1,500
80
WRIGHT, ALLEN
1 transaction
$1,500
81
BARBER, SHONNA
2 transactions
$1,000
82
BARBY, ALLEN
1 transaction
$1,000
83
BEALL, DONALD R.
1 transaction
$1,000
84
BUCKALEW, ADAM L
1 transaction
$1,000
85
CALLAHAN, KENNETH III
1 transaction
$1,000
86
CANTRELL, MIKE
1 transaction
$1,000
87
CARON, CHRISTOPHER
1 transaction
$1,000
88
COOPER, JILL
1 transaction
$1,000
89
COPELAND, GERRET VANSWERINGEN JR.
1 transaction
$1,000
90
COX, ROBERT MR. AND MR
1 transaction
$1,000
91
DOWNS, RAISSA
1 transaction
$1,000
92
FOWLER, KATHY
1 transaction
$1,000
93
GUNN, ASHLEY
1 transaction
$1,000
94
HARROZ, JOE
1 transaction
$1,000
95
HATZIS, LUKE
1 transaction
$1,000
96
HENKE, FRAZIER
1 transaction
$1,000
97
HODGSON, CHRIS
1 transaction
$1,000
98
KING, ANDREW
1 transaction
$1,000
99
LAMB, MONICA
1 transaction
$1,000
100
LASS, CON
1 transaction
$1,000
101
LOPER, GINGER
2 transactions
$1,000
102
LUCAS, JANE
1 transaction
$1,000
103
MCDONALD, MIKE
1 transaction
$1,000
104
MCDOUGALL, CHAD T. MR.
1 transaction
$1,000
105
MILLER, BRIAN
1 transaction
$1,000
106
NIELSEN, MIKE
2 transactions
$1,000
107
OSBORN, WILLIAM MR. AND MR
1 transaction
$1,000
108
PATAKI, TIM
1 transaction
$1,000
109
PAUP, SPIVEY
1 transaction
$1,000
110
PEARSON, DUANNE
1 transaction
$1,000
111
POLAK, ERIN
1 transaction
$1,000
112
POTEET, PAUL
1 transaction
$1,000
113
RADY, PAUL
1 transaction
$1,000
114
REID, RANDI
2 transactions
$1,000
115
RIPLINGER, SCOTT
1 transaction
$1,000
116
SCOFIELD, JOHN
1 transaction
$1,000
117
SHAW, RHOD
1 transaction
$1,000
118
STEIN, MARTIN
1 transaction
$1,000
119
STRUNK, JEFFREY
1 transaction
$1,000
120
SZAFRANSKI, JOHN
1 transaction
$1,000
121
THROCKMORTON, CHRIS
1 transaction
$1,000
122
TRYSLA, TIM
1 transaction
$1,000
123
WILLCOX, DARREN
1 transaction
$1,000
124
WITCHEY, DEBBIE
1 transaction
$1,000
125
ALSPACH, ROBERT
1 transaction
$500
126
BAKER, GEORGE D MR.
1 transaction
$500
127
BARTLETT, DOYLE
1 transaction
$500
128
BILL, TERESA
1 transaction
$500
129
BRAATEN, TYLER
1 transaction
$500
130
BRANDT, KIMBERLY
1 transaction
$500
131
BUCKALEW, ADAM L.
1 transaction
$500
132
CARAM, GEORGE
1 transaction
$500
133
CARD, BRAD
1 transaction
$500
134
CATANZARO, MIKE
1 transaction
$500
135
CHOE, YONG
1 transaction
$500
136
COLE, KELLY
1 transaction
$500
137
DELGADO, MARTIN
1 transaction
$500
138
DEMERITT, DARYN
1 transaction
$500
139
DIAZ DE LA RUBIO, TOMAS
1 transaction
$500
140
DILLINGHAM, DON
1 transaction
$500
141
DOBIAS, MATTHEW
1 transaction
$500
142
EDATTEL, PAUL
1 transaction
$500
143
FINCH, MICHAEL
1 transaction
$500
144
HALITI, BESNIK
1 transaction
$500
145
HALL, HUNTER
1 transaction
$500
146
HAMBY, JAMES
1 transaction
$500
147
HAWKS, T.A.
1 transaction
$500
148
HEAFITZ, JONATHAN
1 transaction
$500
149
HENRY, VALERIE
1 transaction
$500
150
HUNT, HOLLYE
1 transaction
$500
151
IRIZARRY, STEVEN
1 transaction
$500
152
KEATING, FRANK
1 transaction
$500
153
KEISER, ANDREW
1 transaction
$500
154
LAMP, DAVE
1 transaction
$500
155
LANAGAN, LINDSAY
1 transaction
$500
156
LEPORE, JOHN
1 transaction
$500
157
LONG, CHARLES
1 transaction
$500
158
LOUGHRAN, TIM
1 transaction
$500
159
LUKAWSKI, JENNIFER MS.
1 transaction
$500
160
MANDEL, JESSICA
1 transaction
$500
161
MARSHALL, HAZEN
1 transaction
$500
162
MAY, ELIZABETH
1 transaction
$500
163
MCELROY, MICHAEL
1 transaction
$500
164
MERCER, K. ELAINE
1 transaction
$500
165
MOOREHEAD, PAUL MR.
1 transaction
$500
166
MURRAY, JOSEPH
1 transaction
$500
167
NELSON, TYLER MR.
1 transaction
$500
168
PAYNE, WILLIAM II
1 transaction
$500
169
POWELL, ROBERT
1 transaction
$500
170
ROSS, THOMAS
1 transaction
$500
171
SANDGREN, MATT
1 transaction
$500
172
SCHWARTZ, DOUG
1 transaction
$500
173
SMERUD, RICHARD
1 transaction
$500
174
SMITH, WILL
1 transaction
$500
175
SPERLING, ANDREW
1 transaction
$500
176
SPIVEY, LAWRENCE
1 transaction
$500
177
THORNHILL, BARRETT
1 transaction
$500
178
TRYON, WARREN
1 transaction
$500
179
TYLER, TONY J.
1 transaction
$500
180
WARNER, FREDERIC C MR. JR
1 transaction
$500
181
WELLS, BRYAN
1 transaction
$500
182
WILLIAMS, DENNIS
1 transaction
$500

Project 2025 Policy Matches

This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document. Higher similarity scores indicate stronger thematic connections.

Introduction

Low 43.5%
Pages: 575-577

— 543 — Department of the Interior 68. Karen Budd Falen, “Biden’s ‘30 By 30 Plan’: A Slap at American Private Property Rights,” Cowboy State Daily, April 15, 2021, https://cowboystatedaily.com/2021/04/15/bidens-30-by-30-plan-a-slap-at-american-private- property-rights/ (accessed March 16, 2023). 69. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3396: Rescission of Secretary’s Order 3388, ‘Land and Water Conservation Fund Implementation by the U.S. Department of the Interior,’” February 11, 2021, https://www. doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/elips/documents/so-3396-signed-2-11-21-final.pdf (accessed March 17, 2021). 70. Ibid. 71. Associated Press, “Ute Indian Tribe Criticizes Biden’s Camp Hale Monument Designation,” KUER 90.1, October 13, 2022. 72. William Perry Pendley, “Trump Wants to Free Up Federal Lands, His Interior Secretary Fails Him,” National Review Online, September 25, 2017, https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/09/secretary-interior-ryan-zinke- monuments-review-trump-executive-order-antiquities-act-environmentalists/ (accessed March 16, 2023). 73. The Oregon and California Revested Lands Sustained Yield Management Act of 1937, Public Law 75-405, 43 U.S. Code § 2601. 74. Ibid., and American Forest Resource Council v. Hammond, 422 F. Supp. 3d 184, 187 (D.D.C. 2019). 75. American Forest Resource Council v. Hammond, 422 F. Supp. 3d, pp. 187–188. 76. Federal Register, Vol. 55, No. 26 (June 26, 1990), p. 26114–26194. 77. Federal Register, Vol. 65, No. 114 (June 13, 2000), pp. 37249–37252. 78. Federal Register, Vol. 82, No. 11 (January 18, 2017), pp. 6145–6150. 79. American Forest Resource Council v. Hammond, 422 F. Supp. 3d 184 (D.D.C. 2019). 80. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Final Consent Decrees/Settlement Agreements,” https://www.doi.gov/ solicitor/transparency/final (accessed March 16, 2023). 81. Michael Doyle, “Interior Order Erases Litigation Website,” E&E News, June 17, 2022, https://www.eenews.net/ articles/interior-order-erases-litigation-website/ (accessed March 16, 2023). 82. Rob Roy Ramey, On the Origin of Specious Species (Lexington Books 2012), pp. 77–97. 83. William Perry Pendley, “Killing Jobs to Save the Sage Grouse: Junk Science, Weird Science, and Plain Nonsense,” Washington Times, May 31, 2012, https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/may/31/killing- jobs-to-save-the-sage-grouse/ (accessed March 16, 2023). 84. Michael Lee, “Wyoming’s Push to Delist Grizzly Bears from Endangered Species List Faces Opposition from Anti-Hunting Group,” Fox News, January 21, 2022, https://www.foxnews.com/politics/wyoming-delist-grizzly- endangered-species-list-opposition-anti-hunting-group (accessed March 18, 2023). 85. News release, “Trump Administration Returns Management and Protection of Gray Wolves to States and Tribes Following Successful Recovery Efforts,” October 29, 2020, https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/trump- administration-returns-management-and-protection-gray-wolves-states-and-tribes (accessed March 18, 2023). 86. 50 Code of Federal Regulations §17, and Sean Paige, “‘Rewilding’ Will Backfire on Colorado,” The Gazette, June 19, 2022, https://gazette.com/opinion/guest-column-rewilding-will-backfire-on-colorado/article_ d0016672-ed79-11ec-b027-abe62ba840a1.html (accessed March 18, 2023). 87. Madeleine C. Bottrill et al., “Is Conservation Triage Just Smart Decision Making?” Trends in Ecology & Evolution, Vol. 23, No. 12 (December 2008), pp. 649–654, https://karkgroup.org/wp-content/uploads/Bottrill-et-al-2008. pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 88. Rob Roy Ramey II, testimony before the Committee on Resources, U.S. House of Representatives, April 8, 2014, https://naturalresources.house.gov/uploadedfiles/rameytestimony4_8.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 89. Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, Public Law 95–87. 90. Pennsylvania is the nation’s third-largest coal producer, and its state program was the model for SMCRA. 91. Federal Register, Vol. 85, No. 207 (October 26, 2020), pp. 67631–67635. 92. U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, “Approximate Original Contour,” INE–26, June 23, 2020, https://www.osmre.gov/sites/default/files/pdfs/directive1003.pdf (accessed March 18, 2023). 93. Tim Gallaudet and Timothy R. Petty, “Federal Action Plan for Improving Forecasts of Water Availability,” National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, October 2019, https://www.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/ legacy/document/2019/Oct/Federal%20Action%20Plan%20for%20Improving%20Forecasts%20of%20 Water%20Availability.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). — 544 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 94. 32 U.S. Code, ch. 52. 95. Donald J. Trump, “Presidential Memorandum on Promoting the Reliable Supply and Delivery of Water in the West,” October 19, 2018, https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/presidential-actions/presidential- memorandum-promoting-reliable-supply-delivery-water-west/ (accessed March 17, 2023). 96. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Land Buy-Back Program for Tribal Nations,” https://www.doi.gov/ buybackprogram (accessed March 18, 2023). 97. Great American Outdoors Act, Public Law 116–152.

Introduction

Low 42.7%
Pages: 186-188

— 154 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise insurance at prices lower than the actuarially fair rate, thereby subsidizing flood insurance. Then, when flood costs exceed NFIP’s revenue, FEMA seeks taxpay- er-funded bailouts. Current NFIP debt is $20.5 billion, and in 2017, Congress canceled $16 billion in debt when FEMA reached its borrowing authority limit. These subsidies and bailouts only encourage more development in flood zones, increasing the potential losses to both NFIP and the taxpayer. The NFIP should be wound down and replaced with private insurance starting with the least risky areas currently identified by the program. Budget Issues FEMA manages all grants for DHS, and these grants have become pork for states, localities, and special-interest groups. Since 2002, DHS/FEMA have provided more than $56 billion in preparedness grants for state, local, tribal, and territorial governments. For FY 2023, President Biden requested more than $3.5 billion for federal assistance grants.13 Funds provided under these programs do not provide measurable gains for preparedness or resiliency. Rather, more than any objective needs, political interests appear to direct the flow of nondisaster funds. The principles of federalism should be upheld; these indicate that states better understand their unique needs and should bear the costs of their particularized programs. FEMA employees in Washington, D.C., should not determine how bil- lions of federal tax dollars should be awarded to train local law enforcement officers in Texas, harden cybersecurity infrastructure in Utah, or supplement migrant shelters in Arizona. DHS should not be in the business of handing out federal tax dollars: These grants should be terminated. Accomplishing this, however, will require action by Members of Congress who repeatedly vote to fund grants for political reasons. The transition should focus on building resilience and return on investment in line with real threats. Personnel FEMA currently has four Senate-confirmed positions. Only the Administrator should be confirmed by the Senate; other political leadership need not be con- firmed by the Senate. Additionally, FEMA’s “springing Cabinet position” should be eliminated, as this creates significant unnecessary challenges to the functioning of the whole of DHS at points in time when coordinated responses are most needed. CYBERSECURITY AND INFRASTRUCTURE SECURITY AGENCY (CISA) Needed Reforms CISA is supposed to have two key roles: (1) protection of the federal civilian government networks (.gov) while coordinating the execution of national cyber defense and sharing information with non-federal and private-sector partners — 155 — Department of Homeland Security and (2) national coordination of critical infrastructure security and resilience. Yet CISA has rapidly expanded its scope into lanes where it does not belong, the most recent and most glaring example being censorship of so-called misinformation and disinformation. CISA’s funding and resources should align narrowly with the foregoing two mission requirements. The component’s emergency communications and Chem- ical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS) roles should be moved to FEMA; its school security functions should be transferred to state homeland security offices; and CISA should refrain from duplicating cybersecurity functions done elsewhere at the Department of Defense, FBI, National Security Agency, and U.S. Secret Service. Of the utmost urgency is immediately ending CISA’s counter-mis/disinforma- tion efforts. The federal government cannot be the arbiter of truth. CISA began this work because of alleged Russian misinformation in the 2016 election, which in fact turned out to be a Clinton campaign “dirty trick.” The Intelligence Commu- nity, including the NSA or DOD, should counter foreign actors. At the time of this writing, release of the Twitter Files has demonstrated that CISA has devolved into an unconstitutional censoring and election engineering apparatus of the political Left. In any event, the entirety of the CISA Cybersecurity Advisory Committee should be dismissed on Day One. For election security, CISA should help states and localities assess whether they have good cyber hygiene in their hardware and software in preparation for an election—but nothing more. This is of value to smaller localities, particularly by flagging who is attacking their websites. CISA should not be significantly involved closer to an election. Nor should it participate in messaging or propaganda. U.S. COAST GUARD (USCG) Needed Reforms The U.S. Coast Guard fleet should be sized to the needs of great-power compe- tition, specifically focusing efforts and investment on protecting U.S. waters, all while seeking to find (where feasible) more economical ways to perform USCG missions. The scope of the Coast Guard’s mission needs to be focused on protecting U.S. resources and interests in its home waters, specifically its Exclusive Economic Zone (200 miles from shore). USCG’s budget should address the growing demand for it to address the increasing threat from the Chinese fishing fleet in home waters as well as narcotics and migrant flows in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific. Doing this will require reversing years of shortfalls in shipbuilding, maintenance, and upgrades of shore facilities as well as seeking more cost-effective ship and facility designs. In wartime, the USCG supports the Navy, but it has limited capability and capacity to support wartime missions outside home waters.

Introduction

Low 41.9%
Pages: 563-565

— 530 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Despite the passage of nearly 40 years since the end of the Reagan Adminis- tration, the federal government has yet to fulfill its statutory obligation to Alaska and Alaska Natives—specifically, each group has 5 million acres of entitlement remaining. Standing in the way are Public Land Orders (PLOs) issued by the BLM seizing that land for the agency. Those PLOs must be lifted to permit Alaska and Alaska Natives to select what was promised by Congress. For example, revocation of PLO 515057 will provide the state of Alaska 1.3 million acres of its remaining state entitlement. This revocation should be a top priority. BLM recommended this revocation in the 2006 report to Congress based on the Alaska Land Transfer Acceleration Act, and the Interior Secretary has authority to revoke based on the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act under section d(1).58 All other remaining BLM PLOs—all of which are more than 50 years old—should be revoked immediately. Alaska has untapped potential for increased oil production, which is important not just to the revitalization of the nation’s energy sector but is vital to the Alaskan economy. One-quarter of Alaska’s jobs are in the oil industry, and half of its overall economy depends on that industry. Without oil production, the Alaskan economy would be half its size. A new Administration must take the following actions immediately: l Approve the 2020 National Petroleum Reserve Alaska Integrated Activity Plan (NPRA-IAP) by resigning the Record of Decision. (Secretary Haaland’s order reverted to the 2013 IAP, the science for which is out of date, unlike the 2020 IAP.) l Reinstate the 2020 Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) by secretarial order and lift the suspension of the leases. l Approve the 2020 Willow EIS, the largest pending oil and gas projection in the United States in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska, and expand approval from three to five drilling pads.59 Minerals. Alaska is not just blessed with an abundance of oil, it has vast untapped mineral potential. Therefore, the new Administration must immedi- ately approve the Ambler Road Project60 across BLM-managed lands, pursuant to the Secretary’s authority under the ANILCA and based on the Final Envi- ronmental Impact Statement on the project.61 This will permit construction of a new 211-mile roadway on the south side of the Brooks Range, west from the Dalton Highway to the south bank of the Ambler River, and open the area only to mining-related industrial uses, providing high-paying jobs in an area known for unemployment.

Showing 3 of 5 policy matches

About These Correlations

Policy matches are calculated using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text. A score of 60% or higher indicates meaningful thematic overlap. This does not imply direct causation or intent, but highlights areas where legislation aligns with Project 2025 policy objectives.