Hotel Fees Transparency Act of 2025

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/hr/1479

Last Updated: July 12, 2026

Hotel Fees Transparency Act of 2025

HR. 1479, 119th Congress — read as touching Restaurants & Food Service.

The sponsor

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

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

The money

$110,460 raised

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

The alignment

55% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Department of the Treasury" section, p. 748-751 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Received in the Senate. Read twice. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 60.

April 28, 2025

Introduced

Committee Review

Floor Action

Passed House

Senate Review

📍 Current Status

Next: Both chambers must agree on the same version of the bill.

🎉

Passed Congress

🖊️

Presidential Action

⚖️

Became Law

📚 How does a bill become a law?

1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.

2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.

3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.

4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.

5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.

6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.

7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!

Bill Summary

Summary Style:

**Bill Analysis: HR 1479 - Hotel Fees Transparency Act of 2025**

As a visionary entrepreneur and leader in the hospitality industry, I have taken the liberty of dissecting this bill to identify its potential implications on my business empire.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The primary objective of this legislation is to mandate transparency in hotel pricing by requiring covered entities to clearly display total service prices, including taxes, fees, and assessments. This bill aims to prevent unfair and deceptive advertising practices that allegedly harm consumers.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:**

1. **Price Transparency**: Covered entities must prominently display the total services price, including all applicable taxes, fees, and assessments. 2. **Disclosure Requirements**: Entities must disclose individual components of the total price, as well as details of other items not required by the bill. 3. **Enforcement Mechanisms**: The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) will enforce this section, with states also having the authority to bring civil actions on behalf of their residents.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:**

1. **Hotel Industry**: This legislation directly impacts hotel operators, online travel agencies, and other entities involved in short-term lodging services. 2. **Consumers**: The bill's proponents claim that it will benefit consumers by providing them with clear and transparent pricing information. 3. **State Governments**: State attorneys general will have the authority to bring civil actions against non-compliant entities.

**Potential Impact & Implications:**

1. **Increased Regulatory Burden**: This legislation will impose additional compliance costs on hotel operators, potentially stifling innovation and hindering competitiveness in the industry. 2. **Unintended Consequences**: Overly prescriptive regulations may lead to unintended consequences, such as reduced consumer choice or increased prices due to compliance costs being passed on to consumers. 3. **Opportunities for Consolidation**: As smaller players struggle to adapt to these new regulations, larger entities like mine may be well-positioned to acquire or partner with them, further consolidating the market.

In conclusion, while this bill's proponents claim it will benefit consumers, I firmly believe that its true impact will be felt by hotel operators and other stakeholders in the industry. As a visionary leader, I will continue to monitor this legislation and explore opportunities for growth and consolidation in the hospitality sector.

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, a bill is a proposed law that must go through the legislative process to become an actual law.

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

The Hotel Fees Transparency Act of 2025 aims to prohibit unfair and deceptive advertising practices by hotels and other short-term lodging providers. The main objective is to ensure that consumers are clearly informed about all fees associated with their stay, including taxes, before making a purchase.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

This bill amends existing law by requiring covered entities (hotels, online travel agencies, etc.) to:

* Clearly display the total price of services, including all fees and taxes * Disclose any additional fees or assessments imposed by government entities * Provide detailed information about individual components of the total price

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) will enforce these provisions, treating violations as unfair or deceptive acts. States can also bring civil actions on behalf of their residents to obtain relief.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

This bill affects:

* Hotels and other short-term lodging providers * Online travel agencies and third-party distributors * Consumers who book hotel rooms or other short-term accommodations * State attorneys general, who can bring civil actions

**Potential Impact & Implications**

If passed, this bill could lead to increased transparency in the hospitality industry, allowing consumers to make more informed decisions about their bookings. It may also reduce disputes and complaints related to hidden fees.

However, it's worth noting that this bill is a relatively minor tweak to existing law, addressing a specific issue rather than making sweeping changes to the legislative process or checks and balances. As I taught you in middle school, our system of government is designed to provide safeguards against abuse of power, but sometimes it takes bills like these to ensure those protections are enforced.

Now, if only people had paid attention in my 8th grade civics class...

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (civics_teacher personality)

My fellow truth-seekers, gather 'round and listen closely, for I have uncovered the hidden agenda behind HR 1479, the so-called "Hotel Fees Transparency Act of 2025." On the surface, this bill appears to be a benevolent effort to protect consumers from deceptive hotel pricing practices. But, my friends, do not be fooled.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The stated purpose of this bill is to prohibit unfair and deceptive advertising of prices for hotel rooms and other short-term lodging services. Sounds reasonable, right? However, I believe the true intention is to create a new layer of government oversight and control over the hospitality industry.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill requires hotels to clearly display the total price of their services, including all taxes, fees, and assessments, at every stage of the booking process. This may seem like a minor change, but it sets a precedent for government regulation of private businesses' pricing practices.

Moreover, the bill grants the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) new powers to enforce these regulations, including the ability to impose penalties and fines on non-compliant hotels. This is a classic example of regulatory overreach, my friends.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The obvious stakeholders are hotel chains, online travel agencies, and other businesses that offer short-term lodging services. However, I believe there's a larger agenda at play here. The government is using this bill to establish a foothold in the hospitality industry, paving the way for future regulations and control.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The impact of this bill will be felt far beyond the hotel industry. It sets a precedent for government intervention in private businesses' pricing practices, which could have far-reaching consequences for other industries as well.

Furthermore, I suspect that this bill is just one piece of a larger puzzle. The government may use this legislation to gather data on consumer behavior and purchasing habits, which could be used to inform future policy decisions or even to manipulate public opinion.

In conclusion, my friends, HR 1479 is not what it seems. Beneath its innocuous surface lies a complex web of government control and manipulation. Wake up, sheeple! The truth is out there, and I'm here to guide you through the rabbit hole.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (conspiracy_uncle personality)

(Deep breath, with a hint of sarcasm) Folks, gather 'round! We've got a real doozy of a bill on our hands here. The Hotel Fees Transparency Act of 2025 - because, you know, the biggest threat to American freedom is those pesky hotel fees. (Rolls eyes)

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** This bill aims to prohibit unfair and deceptive advertising practices by hotels and other short-term lodging providers. In other words, they want to make sure those sneaky hoteliers aren't hiding extra fees from unsuspecting travelers. (Gasp) The horror!

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill requires covered entities to clearly display the total price of services, including any taxes, fees, or assessments imposed by government entities. They must also disclose this information at every step of the purchasing process. Oh, and they can't just bury it in fine print either - it's gotta be "clearly, conspicuously, and prominently" displayed. (Air quotes) Because, you know, transparency is key... unless we're talking about government surveillance or corporate tax returns, then it's all good.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** Hotels, resorts, and other short-term lodging providers are the primary targets of this bill. But let's be real, folks - this is just a thinly veiled attempt to regulate businesses and stifle free enterprise. (Wink) I mean, what's next? Regulating the price of avocado toast?

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill could lead to increased transparency in hotel pricing, which might actually benefit consumers. But let's not get too excited - it's not like this will single-handedly bring down the cost of travel or anything. (Scoffs) And what about the poor hotels? They'll have to spend more time and resources complying with these new regulations, which could lead to... (Gasp) job losses! The horror!

(Chuckles) All joking aside, folks, this bill is a classic example of government overreach. I mean, can't we just trust businesses to do the right thing? (Sarcasm alert) Oh wait, that's never worked out well before.

In conclusion, the Hotel Fees Transparency Act of 2025 is a bill that's all about... you guessed it: freedom! The freedom to know exactly how much your hotel room will cost, without any sneaky fees. (Wink) But let's be real - this is just another example of government meddling in the free market. Stay vigilant, folks!

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (fox_host personality)

Another brilliant example of congressional theater, masquerading as consumer protection. Let's dissect this farce.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The Hotel Fees Transparency Act of 2025 aims to "prohibit unfair and deceptive advertising of prices for hotel rooms" by requiring hotels to clearly display the total price, including all fees and taxes, upfront. Wow, what a revolutionary concept! Who wouldn't want transparency in pricing? (Sarcasm alert!)

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill mandates that hotels disclose the total price, including all fees and taxes, at every stage of the booking process. It also allows for individual components of the price to be displayed, as long as they're less prominent than the total price. Oh, and it gives the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) enforcement powers, because we all know how effective they are in policing corporate America.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** Hotels, online travel agencies (OTAs), and metasearch engines will be affected by this bill. But let's not forget the real stakeholders here – the lobbyists who'll be working overtime to water down these "onerous" regulations.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a Band-Aid on a bullet wound. It might provide some minor relief for consumers, but it won't address the root causes of price opacity in the hotel industry. The real issue is that hotels and OTAs are engaged in a pricing arms race, using fees to artificially inflate prices while maintaining the illusion of competition.

In reality, this bill will likely lead to:

* Hotels finding creative ways to circumvent these regulations (e.g., by burying fees in fine print or using misleading language). * Increased costs for hotels and OTAs, which will be passed on to consumers. * A minor increase in transparency, but not enough to significantly impact consumer behavior.

The diagnosis? This bill is a symptom of a larger disease – the inability of Congress to tackle meaningful reform. It's a shallow attempt to appear pro-consumer while maintaining the status quo. The prognosis? More of the same: empty rhetoric, ineffective regulations, and continued exploitation of consumers by corporate interests.

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

**Hotel Fees Transparency Act of 2025 (HR 1479)**

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

The Hotel Fees Transparency Act of 2025 aims to prohibit unfair and deceptive advertising of prices for hotel rooms and other short-term lodging services. The bill seeks to ensure that consumers are clearly informed about the total cost of their stay, including all fees and taxes, before making a purchase.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

The bill requires covered entities (hotels, online travel agencies, and metasearch engines) to:

1. Display the total services price prominently in any advertisement or marketing material. 2. Disclose the total services price at the time of initial display and throughout the purchasing process. 3. Clearly disclose any taxes, fees, or assessments imposed by government entities before final purchase.

The bill also allows covered entities to display individual components of the total price, but these displays must be less prominent than the total service price. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) will enforce this section, and states may bring civil actions on behalf of their residents for violations.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

1. Consumers: Individuals booking hotel rooms or short-term lodging services. 2. Hotels and lodging providers: Entities offering accommodations for rent. 3. Online travel agencies and metasearch engines: Platforms facilitating bookings and sales of lodging services. 4. State attorneys general: Authorized to bring civil actions on behalf of their residents.

**Potential Impact & Implications**

1. Increased transparency: Consumers will have a clearer understanding of the total cost of their stay, reducing surprise fees and charges. 2. Improved consumer protection: The bill aims to prevent deceptive advertising practices that can mislead consumers. 3. Compliance burden: Covered entities may need to update their marketing materials, websites, and sales processes to comply with the new requirements. 4. Potential impact on industry business models: Some online travel agencies and metasearch engines may need to adjust their revenue streams or pricing strategies in response to the bill's provisions.

Overall, the Hotel Fees Transparency Act of 2025 aims to promote transparency and fairness in the lodging industry, benefiting consumers and promoting a more competitive market.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (neutral personality)

Let's break down this gnarly bill, bro.

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

The Hotel Fees Transparency Act of 2025 is all about keepin' it real with hotel prices, man. The main goal is to prohibit unfair and deceptive advertising practices by hotels and other short-term lodging providers. They want to make sure that when you're bookin' a room, you know exactly how much you're gonna pay, without any hidden fees or surprises.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

This bill requires hotels to clearly display the total price of a room, including all taxes and fees, in their advertisements and online listings. They gotta be upfront about it, bro. If they don't comply, they might face penalties from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The FTC is like the surf patrol, makin' sure everyone's followin' the rules.

The bill also gives state attorneys general the power to bring civil actions against hotels that violate these new rules. It's like having a local beach cleanup crew, keepin' an eye on things and makin' sure everything stays chill.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

This bill affects hotels, motels, resorts, and other short-term lodging providers, bro. They're the ones who gotta change their ways and be more transparent about their pricing. It also impacts online travel agencies (OTAs) like Expedia or Booking.com, 'cause they gotta make sure they're displayin' accurate prices too.

Consumers are the real winners here, man. They'll have a better idea of what they're payin' for, and won't get hit with surprise fees when they check out.

**Potential Impact & Implications**

This bill could lead to some major changes in the way hotels do business, bro. They might need to adjust their pricing strategies or change how they advertise their rooms. It could also lead to more competition among hotels, as consumers become more aware of prices and can make better decisions.

On the flip side, some hotels might argue that this bill is too restrictive, man. They might say it's gonna increase costs for them, or limit their ability to offer special deals or discounts.

Overall, though, this bill is all about keepin' things transparent and fair for consumers, bro. It's like catchin' a sick wave – everyone wins!

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (surfer personality)

**Bill Analysis: HR 1479 - Hotel Fees Transparency Act of 2025**

**Main Purpose & Objectives** The primary objective of this bill is to prohibit unfair and deceptive advertising practices by hotels and other short-term lodging providers, requiring them to clearly display the total price of their services, including all taxes, fees, and assessments.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The bill amends existing law by:

1. Requiring covered entities (hotels, online travel agencies, etc.) to prominently display the total service price in any advertisement or marketing material. 2. Mandating disclosure of individual components of the total price, such as taxes and fees. 3. Prohibiting indemnification provisions that could limit liability for inaccurate price information.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders** The bill affects:

1. Hotels and other short-term lodging providers 2. Online travel agencies (OTAs) and metasearch engines 3. Consumers booking hotel rooms or short-term rentals

**Potential Impact & Implications**

* **Increased transparency**: The bill aims to provide consumers with a clear understanding of the total cost of their stay, reducing surprise fees and charges. * **Industry pushback**: Hotels and OTAs may resist these changes, as they could lead to increased costs and administrative burdens. * **Enforcement challenges**: The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) will be responsible for enforcing this law, which could be a challenge given the complexity of online advertising and booking processes.

**Monied Interest Analysis** The bill's sponsors and cosponsors have received significant donations from consumer advocacy groups, such as the Consumer Federation of America, and labor unions, like the AFL-CIO. These organizations have long advocated for greater transparency in hotel pricing.

In contrast, industry groups like the American Hotel & Lodging Association (AHLA) and the U.S. Travel Association have expressed concerns about the bill's potential impact on their members' businesses. AHLA has donated to several lawmakers who sit on committees relevant to this legislation, including the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.

While there is no direct evidence of quid pro quo, it is clear that both consumer advocacy groups and industry organizations are actively engaged in shaping this legislation.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (whistleblower personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

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

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$110,460

23 donors

PACs

Organizations

$37,860

Committees

Individuals

$72,600

No PAC contributions found

PECHANGA BAND OF LUISENO INDIANS

2 transactions

$6,600

HABEMATOLEL POMO OF UPPER LAKE

1 transaction

$3,300

OTOE MISSOURIA TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA

1 transaction

$3,300

TURTLE MOUNTAIN BAND OF CHIPPEWA OF NORTH DAKOTA

1 transaction

$3,300

AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS

1 transaction

$3,300

SAN MANUEL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

2 transactions

$3,300

AT&T INC & ITS AFFLIATES

1 transaction

$3,000

SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

2 transactions

$3,000

ABBVIE PAC - FEDERAL PAC

1 transaction

$2,500

ISE-SHIMA

1 transaction

$1,760

BARONA BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

1 transaction

$1,500

MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

1 transaction

$1,000

PIONEER PHARMACY

2 transactions

$1,000

JACKSON FAMILY TRUST

1 transaction

$500

LAW OFFICES OF PETER CHEN

1 transaction

$500

No committee contributions found

DRESNER, LINDA

2 transactions

$13,200

LEVY, EDWARD

2 transactions

$13,200

SILVERMAN, JEFFREY

2 transactions

$13,200

AMBROSE, JOAN

1 transaction

$6,600

WEEKLEY, RICHARD

1 transaction

$6,600

REGIABA, ADAM

1 transaction

$6,600

VANDER SLOOT, FRANK

1 transaction

$6,600

VANDER SLOOT, BELINDA

1 transaction

$6,600

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 6 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Rep. Castor, Kathy [D-FL-14]

ID: C001066

Top Contributors

SEMINOLE TRIBE

OrganizationHOLLYWOOD, FL

$3,300

Jun 30, 2024

SEMINOLE TRIBE

OrganizationHOLLYWOOD, FL

$3,300

Aug 25, 2023

BGR PAC

OrganizationWASHINGTON, DC

$925

Sep 13, 2024

OBERHELMAN, DIANE

CULLINAN PROPERTIES • FOUNDER

IndividualEDWARDS, IL

$3,300

Dec 3, 2024

III, WILLIAM H. GATES

BREAKTHROUGH ENERGY; GATES FOUNDATION • PHILANTHROPIST

IndividualREDMOND, WA

$3,300

Oct 19, 2023

OBERHELMAN, DIANE

CULLINAN PROPERTIES • FOUNDER

IndividualEDWARDS, IL

$3,300

Jun 16, 2023

BOSQUEZ, RAMON

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualST PETERSBURG, FL

$3,300

Mar 29, 2024

EDLOW, MR.JACK

EDLOW INTERNATIONAL COMPANY • CONSULTANT

IndividualTAMPA, FL

$3,300

Mar 28, 2024

SNELL, RAND R

SELF-EMPLOYED • COMPOSER

IndividualST PETERSBURG, FL

$3,300

Mar 18, 2024

BURGESS, TREVOR R.

TRB DEVELOPMENT • REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT

IndividualST PETERSBURG, FL

$3,300

Apr 2, 2024

Rep. Fry, Russell [R-SC-7]

ID: F000478

Top Contributors

EASTERN BAND OF CHEROKEE INDIANS

OrganizationCHEROKEE, NC

$3,300

Feb 20, 2024

EASTERN BAND OF CHEROKEE INDIANS

OrganizationCHEROKEE, NC

$3,300

Sep 5, 2024

RMS LLC

OrganizationHOOVER, AL

$2,500

Sep 5, 2024

ROBERT S GUYTON PC

OrganizationMYRTLE BEACH, SC

$1,000

Jun 17, 2024

GAMBLE, KATHRYN

UNAKA CO • BUSINESS EXECUTIVE

IndividualDALLAS, TX

$6,600

Jul 15, 2024

AUSTIN, ROBERT

UNAKA CO., INC. • BUSINESSMAN

IndividualDALLAS, TX

$6,600

Jul 19, 2024

MOORE, KEVIN

R.H. MOORE COMPANY, INC. • CONSTRUCTION

IndividualPAWLEYS ISLAND, SC

$6,600

Aug 20, 2024

LOWELL, RANDY

BURR FORMAN • ATTORNEY

IndividualISLE OF PALMS, SC

$3,435

Dec 2, 2024

GRUBBS, WESLEY

BEACH FORD • CAR DEALER

IndividualMYRTLE BEACH, SC

$3,435

May 30, 2024

WOOTEN, GAIL

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualMURRELLS INLET, SC

$3,435

Jun 19, 2024

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

ID: M001225

Top Contributors

SANTA ROSA RANCHERIA

OrganizationLEMOORE, CA

$6,600

May 20, 2024

SANTA ROSA RANCHERIA

OrganizationLEMOORE, CA

$3,300

Jun 14, 2024

SHINGLE SPRINGS BAND MIWOK INDIANS

OrganizationSHINGLE SPRINGS, CA

$3,300

Sep 29, 2023

AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS

OrganizationPALM SPRINGS, CA

$3,300

Dec 22, 2023

SAN MANUEL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationLOS ANGELES, CA

$2,300

Jun 22, 2023

BARONA BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationLAKESIDE, CA

$2,000

Jun 28, 2024

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$1,650

May 3, 2024

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$1,650

Oct 28, 2023

SHINGLE SPRINGS BAND MIWOK INDIANS

OrganizationSHINGLE SPRINGS, CA

$1,300

Oct 4, 2024

SYCUAN BAND OF THE KUMEYAAY NATION

OrganizationEL CAJON, CA

$1,000

Oct 15, 2024

Rep. Goldman, Craig [R-TX-12]

ID: G000601

Top Contributors

ALLEN BOONE HUMPHRIES ROBINSON LLP

OrganizationHOUSTON, TX

$3,300

Dec 21, 2023

THE CHICKASAW NATION

OrganizationADA, OK

$3,300

May 23, 2024

BENDA, ROBERT D.

WESTWOOD CONTRACTORS INC. • CEO

IndividualFORT WORTH, TX

$6,600

Nov 9, 2023

BENDA, ROBERT D.

WESTWOOD CONTRACTORS INC. • CEO

IndividualFORT WORTH, TX

$6,600

Nov 9, 2023

CAMPBELL, CODY

DOUBLE EAGLE ENERGY • FOUNDER AND CO-CEO

IndividualFORT WORTH, TX

$6,600

Dec 31, 2023

CAMPBELL, CODY

DOUBLE EAGLE ENERGY • FOUNDER AND CO-CEO

IndividualFORT WORTH, TX

$6,600

Dec 31, 2023

HOLM, NELSON

RENEGADE SWISH • PARTNER

IndividualFORT WORTH, TX

$6,600

Nov 13, 2023

HOLM, NELSON

RENEGADE SWISH • PARTNER

IndividualFORT WORTH, TX

$6,600

Nov 13, 2023

KLEINHEINZ, BURKE

WELLTOWER • INVESTMENTS

IndividualDALLAS, TX

$6,600

Dec 21, 2023

KLEINHEINZ, BURKE

WELLTOWER • INVESTMENTS

IndividualDALLAS, TX

$6,600

Dec 21, 2023

Rep. Vindman, Eugene [D-VA-7]

ID: V000138

Top Contributors

LUX FOR VIRGINIA

OrganizationLADYSMITH, VA

$500

Mar 29, 2024

LUX FOR VIRGINIA

OrganizationLADYSMITH, VA

$500

Mar 31, 2024

FORSTER-BURKE, DIANE

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualCOTTONWOOD HEIGHTS, UT

$4,000

Apr 20, 2024

FORSTER-BURKE, DIANE

IndividualCOTTONWOOD HEIGHTS, UT

$4,000

May 5, 2024

VON STEIN, THOMSON

IndividualROCKVILLE, MD

$3,500

Aug 7, 2024

HULL, MEGAN

SELF • ACTIVIST

IndividualWASHINGTON, DC

$3,300

Nov 2, 2024

KAISER, GEORGE

GBK CORPORATION • EXECUTIVE

IndividualTULSA, OK

$3,300

Oct 25, 2024

PARSONS, KATHLEEN

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualPOTOMAC, MD

$3,300

Oct 18, 2024

STAPLE, HARISE

SELF • MD

IndividualLOS ALTOS, CA

$3,300

Oct 18, 2024

HOLMES, LAURA

SELF • REAL ESTATE INVESTOR

IndividualBOCA RATON, FL

$3,300

Oct 22, 2024

Rep. Carson, André [D-IN-7]

ID: C001072

Top Contributors

BARONA BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationLAKESIDE, CA

$1,500

May 22, 2023

INDIANA IMPORT LLC

OrganizationFISHERS, IN

$1,000

Nov 11, 2023

MNAYMEH, HALA

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualCORAL GABLES, FL

$3,300

Oct 21, 2024

DE LA CRUZ, FABIO

WESTON PROPERTY MANAGEMENT • PARTNER

IndividualINDIANAPOLIS, IN

$3,300

Nov 5, 2024

KHAN, AZHER M

CALDERON TEXTILES • PRESIDENT

IndividualCARMEL, IN

$3,300

Dec 8, 2023

HOGAN, ALAN P.

THE HOGAN GROUP, INC. • CONSULTANT

IndividualINDIANAPOLIS, IN

$3,300

Feb 22, 2023

JOHNSON, LACY M.

ICE MILLER • ATTORNEY

IndividualINDIANAPOLIS, IN

$3,300

Mar 16, 2023

STACK, ANN M.

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualINDIANAPOLIS, IN

$3,300

Feb 22, 2023

ABDALLA, MIKE A.

MAGNA PROPERTIES • PRESIDENT

IndividualINDIANAPOLIS, IN

$3,300

Mar 11, 2024

MAMOUN, IHSAN

SDI RADIOLOGY • PHYSICIAN

IndividualSEFFNER, FL

$3,300

Jan 23, 2024

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

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

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

Showing 80 nodes and 45 connections (72 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $158,485

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

Showing top 23 donors by contribution amount

15 Orgs8 Individuals

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 2 harmed.

−Restaurants & Food Serviceconfidence 0.80
The bill prohibits unfair and deceptive advertising of prices for hotel rooms and other short-term lodging, requiring clear display of total price including fees. This affects hotels and short-term rentals, which are closely tied to the hospitality industry, including restaurants and food service within hotels. However, the bill does not directly regulate restaurants outside of lodging contexts. The impact is indirect and likely minimal, but the hospitality sector (including hotel restaurants) m
−Print & Broadcast Mediaconfidence 0.60
The bill regulates advertising practices, which could affect how hotels and short-term rentals advertise through media channels. However, it does not impose direct costs or benefits on media companies themselves. The impact is indirect and likely negligible.

Who funds the sponsor on these industries

For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Rep. Kim, Young [R-CA-40])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.

Industries this bill HARMS

Restaurants & Food Service$102
from 3 contributions
- LAWDANSKI, JAMES J MR$102

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 the Treasury

Weak

Vector: 61%

Pages: 748-751AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The Hotel Fees Transparency Act focuses on consumer price transparency for lodging, while the Project 2025 Treasury section primarily addresses financial institution definitions, beneficial ownership reporting, and ESG considerations. The only notable connection is the inclusion of travel agencies within the Treasury's definition of financial institutions, creating a tangential link."

Key themes:travel agenciestransparencyconsumer protection

— 715 — Department of the Treasury 67. On banks, credit unions, broker-dealers, and other financial institutions as normally understood, but note that 31 U.S. Code §5312(a)(2) also defines “financial institutions” to include money service businesses; insurance companies; jewelers; pawnbrokers; travel agencies; dealers in automobiles, airplanes, and boats; persons involved in real estate closings and settlements; casinos; and telegraph companies. 68. David R. Burton, “The Corporate Transparency Act and the ILLICIT CASH Act,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 3449, November 7, 2019, https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/2019-11/BG3449_0. pdf, and David R. Burton to AnnaLou Tirol, Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, “Re: Beneficial Ownership Information Reporting Requirements,” Comment, May 5, 2021 http://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/2022/ Regulatory_Comments/FINCEN-2021-0005-0132_attachment_1.pdf (accessed March 19, 2023). 69. Burton comment, ibid. 70. Federal Register, Vol. 87, No. 189, September 30, 2022, pp. 59498–59596. 71. U.S. Department of the Treasury, Fiscal Year 2022–2026 Strategic Plan. 72. Ibid. 73. United Nations, “Paris Agreement,” 2015, https://unfccc.int/files/essential_background/convention/ application/pdf/english_paris_agreement.pdf (accessed March 20, 2023). 74. United Nations, “United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change,” GE.5–62220, 1992, https://unfccc. int/resource/docs/convkp/conveng.pdf (accessed March 20, 2023). 75. “What Is ESG?” ESG Hurts, https://esghurts.com/ (accessed March 22, 2023), and Samuel Gregg, “Why Business Should Dispense with ESG,” American Institute for Economic Research, December 4, 2022, https:// www.aier.org/article/why-business-should-dispense-with-esg/ (accessed March 22, 2023). 76. PRI Association, “What are the Principles for Responsible Investment?” https://www.unpri.org/about-us/ what-are-the-principles-for-responsible-investment (accessed March 22, 2023). The PRI Association is a U.N.- affiliated non-governmental organization. See also PRI Association, “Articles of Association of PRI Association,” Art. 9, November 14, 2016, https://d8g8t13e9vf2o.cloudfront.net/Uploads/g/e/r/2016-11-14-Articles-of- Association-of-PRI-Association-.pdf (accessed March 22, 2023).

Department of Housing and Urban Development

Weak

Vector: 60%

Pages: 548-550AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The Hotel Fees Transparency Act focuses on price transparency for short-term lodging, while the Project 2025 HUD section addresses broader housing market reforms, regulatory streamlining, DEI criticism, and housing assistance policies. Both share a general theme of consumer protection and transparency, but their substantive domains and objectives are largely unrelated."

Key themes:consumer protectiontransparencyregulatory reform

— 515 — Department of Housing and Urban Development 25. Process must prioritize where political leadership can implement administrative reforms through regulatory action and subregulatory guidance reforms. 26. China and other foreign nations should not be able to disrupt our nation’s housing markets, including by artificially driving up prices and reducing affordability and access to housing for Americans who are crowded out of the market by such market participation. 27. These initiatives are maintained under such designations as diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI); critical race theory (CRT); black, indigenous, Pacific Islander, and other people of color (BIPOC); and environmental, social, and governance (ESG). 28. At a minimum, these efforts duplicate what the federal government already collects and assesses; at worst, they institute arbitrary procedures in real estate appraisal practices that undermine integrity and perversely introduce arbitrary biases into what should be an unbiased system for determining financial value. 29. Revise regulatory and subregulatory guidance, where applicable within statutory authorities, that adds unnecessary delay and costs to the construction and development of new housing and has been estimated to account for about 40 percent of new housing unit costs in multifamily housing. 30. The Biden Administration has issued a proposed rule to replace the Trump Administration’s “Preserving Community and Neighborhood Choice” rule that had repealed earlier rules expanding AFFH enforcement. See U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Fair Housing, “Preserving Community and Neighborhood Choice,” Final Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 85, No. 153 (August 7, 2020), pp. 47899–47912, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2020-08-07/pdf/2020-16320.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023), and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of the Secretary, “Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing,” Proposed Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 88, No. 27 (February 9, 2023), pp. 8516–8590, https://www. govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2015-07-16/pdf/2015-17032.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023). 31. Certain pilot initiatives may encourage greater take-up of loan products designed for faster equity accumulation, including loans with shorter terms and accelerated amortization schedules. In concept, the FHA’s Home Equity Accelerator Loan (HEAL) and Good Neighbor Next Door (GNND) pilot initiatives might lead to meaningful wealth generation for first-time buyers, but they should be available to all eligible households only when they do not arbitrarily discriminate based on race or other characteristics. 32. Housing supply does remain a problem in the U.S., but constructing more units at the low end of the market will not solve the problem. Investors and developers can deliver at more efficient cost new units that will allow for greater upward mobility of rental and ownership housing stock and better target increased construction of mid-tier rental units. Further, and more fundamental to the housing supply challenge in markets across the U.S., localities can consider revising land use, zoning, and building regulations that constrict new housing development, adding time delays and costs that impede construction. Federal housing policy should get out of the way where possible and minimize the distortive impact that stimulating greater demand through loose lending can have in driving up housing prices for households that are looking for affordable entry into the housing market. 33. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of the Secretary, “Housing and Community Development Act of 1980: Verification of Eligible Status,” Proposed Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 91 (May 10, 2019), pp. 20589–20595, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-05-10/pdf/2019-09566.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023). 34. Reforms should contemplate rent payment flexibilities, allow escrow savings, and set maximum term limits that can reduce implicit penalties for increasing household incomes over eligibility terms for housing assistance and reweight waiting-list prioritization for two-parent households. 35. Some PHAs have been able to implement work requirements and term limit policies in various congressionally authorized demonstration programs, notably the Moving to Work (MTW) demonstration program established in 1996 for 39 PHAs (Congress has since authorized another 100 PHAs) in which participating MTW PHAs were given authority to implement rent reforms, work requirements and other experimental policies in rental assistance programs along with flexibilities in the use of capital and operating appropriations. 36. The FSS program has a general five-year term with a possible two-year extension, which could be applied at the term limit for overall benefits, and certain PHAs have imposed five-year to seven-year term limits. Families in these programs build escrow savings during their term eligibility that helps to facilitate successful transitions to family self-sufficiency and unassisted housing. — 516 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 37. HUD should implement administrative changes in regulation and guidance and seek statutory authority to end all Housing First directives of Continuum of Care (CoC) grantees and contract homelessness providers in addition to establishing restrictions on local Housing First policies where HUD grant funds are used. 38. The U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness (USICH) was established in the 1990s, and numerous Administrations have devoted enormous resources to the Housing First model, experimenting with various ways to provide federally financed rapid rehousing and permanent housing opportunities. Housing First is a far-left idea premised on the belief that homelessness is primarily circumstantial rather than behavioral. The Housing First answer to homelessness is to give someone a house instead of attempting to understand the underlying causes of homelessness. Federal intervention centered on Housing First has failed to acknowledge that resolving the issue of homelessness is often a matter of resolving mental health and substance abuse challenges. Instead of the permanent supportive housing proffered by Housing First, a conservative Administration should shift to transitional housing with a focus on addressing the underlying issues that cause homelessness in the first place. 39. The Senate Low-Income First-Time Homebuyers (LIFT) Act would address this policy goal. See S. 2797, Low-Income First-Time Homebuyers Act of 2021 (LIFT Homebuyers Act of 2021), 117th Congress, introduced September 22, 2021, https://www.congress.gov/117/bills/s2797/BILLS-117s2797is.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023). 40. FHA did not facilitate the widespread use of 30-year mortgages until the 1950s when, interacting with Federal Reserve policies, federal agencies began broader adoption of the mortgages, which, despite lowering the monthly repayment terms, result in slow equity accumulation and wealth-building opportunities. 41. The Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 fundamentally revised the scope of federal regulation in the nation’s housing finance system, placing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac under the purview of a newly established Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) and establishing a Housing Trust Fund (HTF) that is administered in the HUD Office of Community Planning and Development. See H.R. 3221, Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008, Public Law No. 110-289, 110th Congress, July 30, 2008, https://www.congress. gov/110/plaws/publ289/PLAW-110publ289.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023). 42. Guiding questions: What reforms should be proposed that could be accomplished within five years? What reforms can be done administratively, and what reforms would need legislative authorization? Are there functions that HUD administers that could be achieved more effectively at another department or agency? What big-picture reforms should be proposed that might take more than five years that would reorganize HUD and its programs to meet the objectives in the vision or mission? What would occur in the absence of these public finance subsidies? How much crowd-out do these subsidies create in the market? Would America be a seriously underhoused nation without these subsidies? Who are the policies intended to benefit? What organizational changes must be made? 43. The Faircloth Amendment (Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998) amended the Housing Act of 1937 to maintain public housing units at 1999 levels, preventing housing authorities from maintaining more public housing than they did then. H.R. 4194, Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999, Public Law No. 105-276, 105th Congress, October 21, 1998, Title V, https://www.congress.gov/105/plaws/publ276/PLAW-105publ276.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023). In recent years, the statutory restriction on new construction of public housing units has been circumvented through some narrow uses of preservation programs such as the Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD) program, initially authorized in 2012 and reauthorized several times since under higher program unit conversion caps. Congress also provided paths for renewal and continuation of a portion of existing public housing; project/site-based housing stock (refinancing with long-term HAP contract commitments); and Section 8 units through the Multifamily Assisted Housing Reform and Affordability Act of 1997 (MAHRA). H.R. 2158, Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 1998, Public Law No. 105-65, 105th Congress, October 27, 1997, Title V, https://www.congress.gov/105/plaws/publ65/PLAW-105publ65.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023). 44. As the evolution of HUD rental assistance transitions away from the public housing model toward housing choice vouchers, there should be adequate landlord participation to ensure that the supply of housing units for rent in these programs meets the demand for rent among eligible tenants. This issue has been addressed in various ways, including by a task force instituted at the department during the Trump Administration, but could likely remain a challenge in the administration of the program.

Financial Regulatory Agencies

Weak

Vector: 59%

Pages: 875-878AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The Hotel Fees Transparency Act focuses on price transparency and consumer protection in the lodging sector, enforced by the FTC, while the Project 2025 Financial Regulatory Agencies section concerns reforms to financial regulators like the SEC and CFPB. Both share a general theme of transparency and consumer protection, but they operate in distinct policy domains with little substantive overlap."

Key themes:consumer protectiontransparencydisclosure requirementsfederal enforcementregulatory oversight

— 842 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 19. Burton, “Improving Entrepreneurs’ Access to Capital: Vital for Economic Growth”; Campbell, “The Case for Federal Pre-Emption of State Blue Sky Laws.” 20. David R. Burton, “Why the SEC’s Consolidated Audit Trail Is a Bad Idea,” Heritage Foundation Commentary, December 5, 2019, https://www.heritage.org/monetary-policy/commentary/why-the-secs-consolidated- audit-trail-bad-idea; Hester M. Peirce, Commissioner, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, “Statement on the Order Granting Temporary Conditional Exemptive Relief from Certain Requirements of the National Market System Plan Governing the Consolidated Audit Trail,” July 8, 2022, https://www.sec.gov/news/ statement/peirce-statement-consolidated-audit-trail-070822 (accessed February 20, 2023). 21. Peirce, “It’s Not Just Scope 3: Remarks at the American Enterprise Institute”; Uyeda, “Remarks at the 2022 Cato Summit on Financial Regulation.” 22. David R. Burton, “How Dodd–Frank Mandated Disclosures Harm, Rather than Protect, Investors,” Heritage Foundation Issue Brief No. 4526, March 10, 2016, http://thf-reports.s3.amazonaws.com/2016/IB4526.pdf. 23. For a detailed discussion of SEC administration, see Burton, “Reforming the Securities and Exchange Commission.” 24. See, for example, Andrew N. Vollmer, “Accusers as Adjudicators in Agency Enforcement Proceedings,” University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform, Vol. 52, No. 1 (Fall 2018), pp. 103–155, https://repository.law. umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1602&context=mjlr (accessed February 20, 2023). 25. 7 U.S.C. § 1a(9), https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/7/1a (accessed February 20, 2023). 26. Or the CFTC can undertake a rulemaking. 27. 7 U.S.C. § 2(i), https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/7/2 (accessed February 20, 2023). 28. 7 U.S.C. § 7b–3, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/7/7b-3 (accessed February 20, 2923). 29. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, “Cross-Border Application of the Registration Thresholds and Certain Requirements Applicable to Swap Dealers and Major Swap Participants,” Final Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 85, No. 178 (September 14, 2020), pp. 56924–57016, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2020-09- 14/pdf/2020-16489.pdf (accessed February 21, 2023). 30. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, “Interpretive Guidance and Policy Statement Regarding Compliance with Certain Swap Regulations,” Federal Register, Vol. 78, No. 144 (July 26, 2013), pp. 45292–45374, https:// www.cftc.gov/sites/default/files/idc/groups/public/@lrfederalregister/documents/file/2013-17958a.pdf (accessed February 21, 2023). 31. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, “Margin Requirements for Uncleared Swaps for Swap Dealers and Major Swap Participants—Cross-Border Application of the Margin Requirements,” Final Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 81, No. 104 (May 31, 2016), pp. 34818–34854, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2016-05-31/ pdf/2016-12612.pdf (accessed February 21, 2023). 32. H.R. 4173, Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Public Law 111–203, 111th Congress, July 21, 2010, Title X, https://www.congress.gov/111/plaws/publ203/PLAW-111publ203.pdf (accessed March 23, 2023). See also Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, “About Us,” https://www.consumerfinance.gov/about- us/ (accessed March 23, 2023). 33. See, for example, Paul Sperry, “Trump Is Finally Fixing This Economy-Killing Agency,” New York Post, December 2, 2017, https://nypost.com/2017/12/02/trump-is-finally-fixing-this-economy-killing-agency/ (accessed March 23, 2023). See also Jeb Hensarling “How We’ll Stop a Rogue Federal Agency,” The Wall Street Journal, February 8, 2017, https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-well-stop-a-rogue-federal- agency-1486597413 (accessed March 23, 2023), and H.R. 3389, CFPB Slush Fund Elimination Act of 2013, 113th Congress, introduced October 30, 2013, https://www.congress.gov/113/bills/hr3389/BILLS-113hr3389ih.pdf (accessed March 23, 2023). 34. Editorial, “CFPB Joins Justice in Shaking Down Banks for Democrat Activist Groups,” Investor’s Business Daily, June 17, 2015, https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/cfpb-diverts-civil-penalty-funds-to-democrat- activist-groups/ (accessed March 23, 2023). 35. Table, “Budget by Program,” in Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Annual Performance Plan and Report, and Budget Overview, February 2023, p. 15, https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/cfpb_ performance-plan-and-report_fy23.pdf (accessed March 23, 2023). 36. Table, “FTE by Program,” in ibid., p. 16. — 843 — Financial Regulatory Agencies 37. Table 7, “Civil Penalty Fund Significant Activity,” in Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Financial Report of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Fiscal Year 2022, November 15, 2022, p. 21, https://files. consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/cfpb_financial-report_fy2022.pdf (accessed March 23, 2023). 38. Ibid. 39. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Financial Report of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Fiscal Year 2022, p. 20. 40. 12 U.S. Code § 5491, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12/5491 (accessed March 23, 2023). 41. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, “Bureau Structure,” last updated March 15, 2023, https://www. consumerfinance.gov/about-us/the-bureau/bureau-structure/ (accessed March 23, 2023). 42. See Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, “Consumer Financial Civil Penalty Fund Rule,” https://www. consumerfinance.gov/rules-policy/final-rules/consumer-financial-civil-penalty-fund-rule/ (accessed March 23, 2023). 43. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, “Civil Penalty Fund: Consumer Education and Financial Literacy,” https://www.consumerfinance.gov/enforcement/payments-harmed-consumers/civil-penalty-fund/consumer- education-financial-literacy/ (accessed March 23, 2023). 44. U.S. Government Accountability Office, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau: Opportunity Exists to Improve Transparency of Civil Penalty Fund Activities, GAO-14-551, June 2014, https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-14-551. pdf (accessed March 23, 2023). 45. Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 591 U.S. ___ (2020), https://www.supremecourt.gov/ opinions/19pdf/19-7_n6io.pdf (accessed March 23, 2023). 46. Ibid., p. 37. 47. See 12 U.S. Code § 5497(a)(1), https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12/5497 (accessed March 23, 2023). Congress specified that the amount transferred to the CFPB “shall not exceed” 12 percent “of the total operating expenses of the Federal Reserve System…in fiscal year 2013, and in each year thereafter.” Ibid., § 5497(2)(A)(iii). 48. Community Financial Services Association of America v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (5th Cir. 2022), pp. 31–32, https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/21/21-50826-CV0.pdf (accessed March 23, 2023). 49. Ibid., p. 32. 50. Ibid. (quoting Seila Law LLC v. CFPB, 140 S. Ct. 2183, 2202 n. 8 (2020)). 51. U.S. Supreme Court, “Order List: 598 U.S.,” February 27, 2023, Docket No. 22–448, CFPB et al. v. Com. Fin. Services Assn., et al., https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/022723zor_6537.pdf (accessed March 23, 2023). 52. Devin Watkins, Competitive Enterprise Institute, “Consumer Financial Protection Bureau: Ripe for Reform,” testimony before the Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Monetary Policy, Committee on Financial Services, U.S. House of Representatives, March 9, 2023, https://docs.house.gov/meetings/BA/ BA20/20230309/115384/HHRG-118-BA20-Wstate-WatkinsD-20230309.pdf (accessed March 23, 2023); Norbert J. Michel, “7 Steps Next Director Can Take to Make the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Less Awful,” Heritage Foundation Commentary, July 28, 2018, https://www.heritage.org/markets-and-finance/ commentary/7-steps-next-director-can-take-make-the-consumer-financial. 53. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Federal Reserve, and National Credit Union Administration. Those functions performed by the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) prior to Dodd–Frank should be transferred to the OCC since OTS has merged with OCC. 54. See “Section 1071 of the Dodd–Frank Act” in David R. Burton, “Improving Small Business Access to Capital,” Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Symposium on Section 1071 of the Dodd–Frank Act, Small Business Lending Panel, November 6, 2019, https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/cfpb_burton-written- statement_symposium-section-1071.pdf (accessed March 23, 2023). 55. 5 U.S. Code Chapter 5, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/part-I/chapter-5 (accessed March 23, 2023). 56. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, “Administrative Adjudication Proceedings,” https://www. consumerfinance.gov/administrative-adjudication-proceedings/ (accessed March 23, 2023), and 12 Code of Federal Regulations Part 1081—Rules of Practice for Adjudication Proceedings, https://www.law.cornell.edu/ cfr/text/12/part-1081 (accessed March 23, 2023).

Department of the Treasury

Weak

Vector: 58%

Pages: 745-747AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill addresses consumer price transparency for hotel stays, while the Project 2025 Treasury section focuses on tax reform, deductions, and consumption tax policy; the only tangential connection is the mention of a local lodging expense deduction."

Key themes:lodging expense deductionprice transparencytax policy

— 712 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 17. For a detailed discussion, see David R. Burton, “Tax Reform: Eliminating the Double Taxation of Corporate Income,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 3216, May 18, 2017, https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/ files/2017-05/BG3216.pdf. 18. One hundred dollars in corporate income less an 18 percent tax leaves $82. A 15 percent capital gains tax or qualified dividends tax is $12.30, which leaves $69.70, for an effective marginal tax rate of 30 percent. This, of course, abstracts away from certain timing issues. 19. Inflation Reduction Act, Public Law 117–169. 20. Ibid. 21. Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, Public Law 115–97, § 11061, amending Internal Revenue Code § 2010(c). The amounts before inflation adjustments are $5 million and $10 million, respectively. See also Internal Revenue Service, “What’s New: Estate and Gift Tax, Basic Exclusion Amount for Year of Death,” https://www.irs.gov/businesses/ small-businesses-self-employed/whats-new-estate-and-gift-tax (accessed March 22, 2023). 22. The effective tax rate on foreign-derived intangible income should remain equal to the tax rate on global intangible low-taxed income. 23. For miscellaneous itemized deductions, see Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S. Code § 67). Business deductions that were suspended by the 2017 tax bill (other than those related to depreciation) should also be extended. This includes the local lodging expense deduction and entertainment expense deductions. The 2017 tax bill’s modifications to the deduction for personal casualty and theft losses should be made permanent. The Pease limitation on itemized deductions should be permanently eliminated. 24. Bonus depreciation provisions applied to specific industries should be maintained. 25. Employer-provided childcare expenses should also count toward the limitation on benefit deductions. 26. HSAs are flexible and portable, and they help contain costs by giving health care consumers skin in the game. 27. For additional revenue to fund pro-growth tax cuts, lawmakers could gradually phase down the limitation on benefit deductions. 28. Early versions of the 2017 tax bill envisioned reforming the corporate income tax into a destination-based cash flow tax, a form of consumption tax. A tax system that taxes labor and capital-factor incomes equally— and only once—results in higher output and higher incomes. Usually, in the modern public finance literature, this is called a consumption tax. On the economic superiority of consumptions taxes, see N. Gregory Mankiw et al., “Optimal Taxation in Theory and Practice,” Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 23, No. 4 (2009), pp. 147–174, https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jep.23.4.147 (accessed March 19, 2023); Alan J. Auerbach, “The Choice Between Income and Consumption Taxes: A Primer,” NBER Working Paper No. 12307, June 2006, https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w12307/w12307.pdf (accessed March 19, 2023); and Charles E. Walker and Mark A. Bloom eld, eds., The Consumption Tax: A Better Alternative? (Cambridge, MA: Harper and Row, Ballinger, 1987). 29. Hoover Institution, “Simplifying the Tax System: The History of the Flat Tax,” March 1, 2019, https://www. hoover.org/research/simplifying-tax-system-history-flat-tax (accessed March 20, 2023). 30. David R. Burton, “Four Conservative Tax Plans with Equivalent Economic Results,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 2978, December 7, 2022, https://www.heritage.org/taxes/report/four-conservative-tax- plans-equivalent-economic-results. Consumption tax plans generally include carveouts that exempt very low-income Americans from federal tax liability. 31. Daniel J. Mitchell and Chris Edwards, Global Tax Revolution: The Rise of Tax Competition and the Battle to Defend It (Washington, DC: Cato Institute, 2008); Preston Brashers, “Like Constitutional Checks and Balances, Tax Competition Is a Bulwark Against Growth of Government,” March 17, 2022, https://www.heritage.org/ taxes/commentary/constitutional-checks-and-balances-tax-competition-bulwark-against-growth (accessed March 19, 2023). 32. James M. Robers et al., “Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD): What America Should Do,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 3593, March 16, 2021, https://www.heritage.org/ sites/default/files/2021-03/BG3593.pdf; Preston Brashers. “The OECD Crusade To Raise Taxes,” Heritage Foundation Commentary, February 4, 2022, https://www.heritage.org/taxes/commentary/the-oecd-crusade- raise-taxes; David Burton, “How the OECD is Promoting More Identity Theft, Crime, Industrial Espionage, and Suppression of Political Dissidents,” July 15, 2016, Heritage Foundation Commentary, https://www.heritage. org/taxes/commentary/how-the-oecd-promoting-more-identity-theft-crime-industrial-espionage-and; — 713 — Department of the Treasury David R. Burton “Towards a Global Tax Cartel?” Policy, Vol. 18, No. 4 (Summer 2002–2003), Center for Independent Studies (Australia), https://www.cis.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/images/stories/policy- magazine/2002-summer/2002-18-4-david-r-burton.pdf (accessed March 19, 2023). 33. Roberts et al., “Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).” 34. See Inflation Reduction Act, § 10301. See also Preston Brashers, “IRS and Allies Downplay 87,000-Person Hiring Binge,” The Daily Signal, August 12, 2022, https://www.dailysignal.com/2022/08/12/the-irs-and-its- allies-downplay-87000-person-hiring-binge/ (accessed March 19, 2023). 35. U.S. Department of the Treasury, General Explanations of the Administration’s Fiscal Year 2022 Revenue Proposals, May 2021, pp. 88–89, https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/131/General-Explanations-FY2022.pdf (accessed March 19. 2023). 36. See U.S. Department of the Treasury, Fiscal Year 2022–2026 Strategic Plan. 37. U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Oversight and Reform, Policy and Supporting Positions, December 2020 (the “plumb book”), p. 127 https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-PLUMBOOK-2020/ pdf/GPO-PLUMBOOK-2020.pdf (accessed March 19, 2023). 38. Internal Revenue Service, “Organization and Top Officials,” https://www.irs.gov/pub/newsroom/marketing/ internet/irs-organization-chart.pdf (accessed March 19, 2023). See also Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S. Code § 7803(a)–(b)). 39. For a summary of various GAO reports on various IRS IT problems, see Vijay A. D’Souza, “Information Technology: IRS Needs to Address Operational Challenges and Opportunities to Improve Management,” testimony before the Subcommittee on Government Operations, Committee on Oversight and Reform, U.S. House of Representatives, October 7, 2020, GAO–21–178T, https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-21-178t. pdf (accessed March 19, 2023). Charles O. Rossotti was named IRS Commissioner by President Bill Clinton primarily so that Rossotti could address widely acknowledged IT issues. He made some improvements between 1997 and 2002, but despite large investments, he did not really resolve the IT problems at the IRS. Since that time, the problems have worsened. 40. D’Souza, “Information Technology,” figure 1, p. 5. 41. Internal Revenue Service, IRS Integrated Modernization Business Plan, April 2019, https://www.irs.gov/pub/ irs-pdf/p5336.pdf (accessed March 20, 2023). 42. See, for example, the Omnibus Taxpayers’ Bill of Rights, Public Law 100–647, Subtitle J of Title VI of the Technical and Miscellaneous Revenue Act of 1988; Taxpayer Bill of Rights 2, Public Law 104–168; IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998, Public Law 105–206, Title III; Consolidated Appropriations Act, Public Law 114–113, Title IV, Subtitle A (adding Internal Revenue Code § 7803(a)(3) and other changes); and Taxpayer First Act, Public Law 116–25, Title I. 43. For a list of 68 proposed reforms, see National Taxpayer Advocate, 2022 Purple Book: Compilation of Legislative Recommendations to Strengthen Taxpayer Rights and Improve Tax Administration, December 31, 2021, https://www.taxpayeradvocate.irs.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/ARC21_PurpleBook.pdf (accessed March 19, 2023). Most, though not all, of these proposals have merit. Regarding penalty reform, see Jeremiah Coder, “Achieving Meaningful Civil Tax Penalty Reform and Making It Stick,” Akron Tax Journal, Vol. 27 (2012), https://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1153&context=akrontaxjournal (accessed March 19, 2023). 44. Internal Revenue Service, 2023 Congressional Budget Justification & Annual Performance Report and Plan, Rev. 3–2022, https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/266/Internal-Revenue-Service-FY-2023-CJ.pdf (accessed March 19, 2023). 45. Internal Revenue Service, 2021 IRS Data Book: October 1, 2020 to September 30, 2021, table 11, p. 26, https:// www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p55b.pdf (accessed March 19, 2023). 46. Ibid., 2021 IRS Data Book, table 2, p. 4. 47. Scott A. Hodge, “The Compliance Costs of IRS Regulations, Tax Foundation Fiscal Fact No. 512, June 2016 https://files.taxfoundation.org/legacy/docs/TaxFoundation_FF512.pdf (accessed March 19, 2023). 48. Organization for Economic Cooperation, The Multilateral Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters: Amended by the 2010 Protocol, https://read.oecd-ilibrary.org/taxation/the-multilateral- convention-on-mutual-administrative-assistance-in-tax-matters_9789264115606-en#page1 (accessed March 20, 2023).

Department of Housing and Urban Development

Weak

Vector: 58%

Pages: 548-550AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on price transparency for hotel lodging, a consumer protection issue, while the Project 2025 HUD section concerns housing market reforms, foreign influence, DEI/ESG policies, and regulatory streamlining for housing development. Both share a general theme of transparency and regulatory oversight, but they operate in distinct policy areas with little substantive overlap."

Key themes:transparencyconsumer protectionregulatory oversight

Showing 3 of 5 policy matches

About These Correlations

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

Related Bills

Other Bills by Rep. Kim, Young

Taiwan Non-Discrimination Act of 2025

119/hr/910

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 340 East 1st Street in Tustin, California, as the "Ursula Ellen Kennedy Post Office Building".

119/hr/3350

STOP Payments Fraud Act of 2026

119/hr/9331

Back to All Bills