The bill
Taxpayer Data Protection Act
HR. 1101, 119th Congress — read as touching Commercial Banks.
Sponsored by
Rep. Stevens, Haley M. [D-MI-11]
ID: S001215
Follow the money
The bill
HR. 1101, 119th Congress — read as touching Commercial Banks.
The sponsor
Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.
The money
30 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.
The alignment
This bill's text tracks the "Introduction" section, p. 630-632 of the Mandate for Leadership.
Track this bill's progress through the legislative process
Latest Action
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR H625-626)
February 10, 2025
📍 Current Status
Next: The bill will be reviewed by relevant committees who will debate, amend, and vote on it.
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!
Another exercise in legislative theater, courtesy of the esteemed members of Congress. Let's dissect this farce, shall we?
**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The Taxpayer Data Protection Act (HR 1101) claims to prohibit unlawful access to the payment system of the Bureau of the Fiscal Service within the Department of the Treasury. How noble. In reality, this bill is a Band-Aid on a bullet wound, attempting to address the symptoms rather than the underlying disease: government incompetence and corruption.
**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends Section 321 of title 31, United States Code, by adding new requirements for accessing the payment system. These include:
* Restricting access to officers, employees, or contractors with a "fully successful" performance rating (because who needs accountability?) and at least one year of service. * Requiring security clearances for non-employees (a nice little gift to the clearance industry). * Mandating training on privacy laws and cybersecurity regulations (because a few hours of PowerPoint will surely prevent data breaches).
These provisions are nothing more than a smokescreen, designed to create the illusion of action while maintaining the status quo.
**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects:
* The Department of the Treasury (which will likely continue to botch its duties). * Contractors and employees with access to the payment system (who will now have to jump through more hoops to get paid). * Taxpayers (who will remain blissfully unaware of the bill's ineffectiveness).
**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a classic case of "legislative placebo effect." It creates a false sense of security, while doing nothing to address the root causes of data breaches and corruption. The real impact will be:
* Increased bureaucracy and red tape for contractors and employees. * More opportunities for cronyism and favoritism in the clearance process. * A continued lack of accountability and transparency within the Department of the Treasury.
In short, this bill is a waste of time and resources, designed to pacify the gullible public while maintaining the corrupt status quo. Bravo, Congress. You've managed to create another masterpiece of legislative ineptitude.
Rep. Stevens, Haley M. [D-MI-11]
Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle
No PAC contributions found
No committee contributions found
This bill has 10 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.
ID: C001117
Top Contributors
10
ID: W000830
Top Contributors
10
ID: V000081
Top Contributors
0
No contribution data available
ID: S001207
Top Contributors
10
ID: M001196
Top Contributors
10
ID: J000305
Top Contributors
10
ID: S001156
Top Contributors
0
No contribution data available
ID: A000370
Top Contributors
10
ID: P000034
Top Contributors
10
ID: F000476
Top Contributors
10
Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.
Showing 92 nodes and 42 connections (87 secondary connections hidden)
Total contributions: $122,300
Showing top 25 donors by contribution amount
Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 2 harmed.
Section 2(e)(1) imposes restrictions on access to the payment system of the Bureau of the Fiscal Service, which may increase regulatory burden on commercial banks that interact with this system.
Section 2(e)(1) restricts access to payment systems, potentially affecting fintech companies that rely on these systems, including those involved in cryptocurrency transactions.
For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Rep. Stevens, Haley M. [D-MI-11])received from donors associated with that industry during the 2022–present cycles. Donations are not proof of intent — they are a record of who funds the people writing the law.
This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.
— 598 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise unemployment programs were defrauded of hundreds of billions of dollars, includ- ing by state-sponsored hacking groups. Not all state agencies are yet through their backlogs of appeals and fraud cases; the recovery of lost funds has been minimal; and fraud has now spilled into the traditional UI programs. The CARES Act era drastically altered the entire UI ecosystem: The federal–state partnership shifted toward federal programs and funding, and the social insurance purpose of the program was disconnected as benefits were extended, expanded to more typically uncovered populations, and made exponentially larger. l Congress should enact bipartisan commonsense UI program reforms, including statutory authority for the Labor Office of Inspector General (OIG) to access all state UI records for the purposes of investigation and requiring state agencies to crossmatch applicants with the National Directory of New Hires. l Congress should also develop a framework (through commission of a congressional report to serve as a blueprint) of technical standards on broader tech topics like usability, state agency cybersecurity postures, data taxonomy standardization, and/or identity verification standards. l Congress should provide DOL with more reasonable enforcement tools for the UI system. Currently, DOL can either send a strongly worded letter or revoke the entire Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA)16 tax credit, which would place an immediate 6 percent to 7 percent tax on all covered employers. l DOL should review all actual or planned procurements against the $2 billion (under the American Rescue Plan Act)17 for UI fraud detection, accessibility, and equity investments. These funds do not have appropriations timelines and have very minimal statutory descriptions of the intended purpose. DOL should also review and propose changes to improve state monitoring programs including developing evidence-based frameworks for evaluating the technical readiness and security postures of the state agencies; strengthen its relationship with the OIG and Government Accountability Office (GAO), and support continued development of fraud prosecution with DOJ, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and the financial services community; ensure administrative and IT funding is outcome-based; and gather and publish best practices from state officials, industry partners, and other vendors who deliver UI services. — 599 — Department of Labor and Related Agencies WORKER VOICE AND COLLECTIVE BARGAINING Non-Union Worker Voice and Representation. American workers lack a meaningful voice in today’s workplace. Between 50 percent and 60 percent of workers have less influence than they want on critical workplaces issues beyond pay and benefits. Even managers are twice as likely to say their employees have too little influence rather than too much. But America’s one-size-fits-all approach undermines worker representation. Federal labor law offers no alternatives to labor unions whose politicking and adversarial approach appeals to few, whereas most workers report that they prefer a more cooperative model run jointly with management that focuses solely on workplace issues. The next Administration should make new options available to workers and push Congress to pass labor reforms that create non-union “employee involvement organizations” as well as a mechanism for worker representation on corporate boards. l Congress should reintroduce and pass the Teamwork for Employees and Managers (TEAM) Act of 2022.18 The TEAM Act: 1. Reforms the National Labor Relations Act’s (NLRA) Section 8(a)(2) prohibition on formal worker–management cooperative organizations like works councils. 2. Creates an “Employee Involvement Organization” (EIO) to facilitate voluntary cooperation on critical issues like working conditions, benefits, and productivity. 3. Amends labor law to allow EIOs at large, publicly traded corporations to elect a non-voting, supervisory member of their company’s board of directors. Alternative View. While some conservatives lament that workers lack sufficient voice in today’s workplace, others interpret the rise in independent and flexible work opportunities, significant expansion in family-friendly policies like paid family leave, and the decline in private sector unionization as indicators of workers’ increasing competency and control. Another way to help expand workers’ freedom and voices in traditional workplaces is by allowing them to choose who represents them in negotiations with their employer. The Worker’s Choice Act19 would accom- plish this by ending exclusive representation so that unions in right-to-work states are no longer forced to represent workers who do not want to join them. Union Transparency. Private-sector unions must file detailed financial infor- mation with DOL—on matters including union spending, income, loans, assets, membership information, and employee salary—but unions composed entirely
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.
Financial Technology Protection Act of 2025
Of inquiry requesting the President of the United States to furnish certain information to the House of Representatives relating to the operations of the Social Security Administration after January 20, 2025, including information on the Department of Government Efficiency's access to the Social Security Administration and to information in the possession of such Administration.
Taxpayer Funds Oversight and Accountability Act