Postal Supervisors and Managers Fairness Act of 2025

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/hr/1560

Last Updated: March 3, 2026

Postal Supervisors and Managers Fairness Act of 2025

HR. 1560, 119th Congress — read as touching Labor Unions.

The sponsor

Rep. Connolly, Gerald E. [D-VA-11]

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

The money

$69,150 raised

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

The alignment

55% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Central Personnel Agencies: Managing the Bureaucracy" section, p. 106-108 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

ASSUMING FIRST SPONSORSHIP - Mr. Walkinshaw asked unanimous consent that he may hereafter be considered as the first sponsor of H.R. 1560, a bill originally introduced by Representative Connolly, for the purpose of adding cosponsors and requesting reprintings pursuant to clause 7 of rule XII. Agreed to without objection.

November 19, 2025

Introduced

📍 Current Status

Next: The bill will be reviewed by relevant committees who will debate, amend, and vote on it.

🏛️

Committee Review

🗳️

Floor Action

✅

Passed House

🏛️

Senate Review

🎉

Passed Congress

🖊️

Presidential Action

⚖️

Became Law

📚 How does a bill become a law?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bill Summary

Summary Style:

**Analysis of HR 1560: Postal Supervisors and Managers Fairness Act of 2025**

As a visionary entrepreneur and thought leader, I'll dissect this bill through the lens of its potential impact on my business empire and the broader landscape of wealth creation.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The primary objective of HR 1560 is to modify procedures for negotiating pay and benefits of supervisory and managerial personnel within the United States Postal Service (USPS). The bill aims to create a more equitable process for these employees, but I see it as an attempt to further entrench bureaucratic inefficiencies.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends Section 1004 of Title 39, United States Code, by introducing new procedures for negotiating pay and benefits. Key changes include:

1. Requiring the USPS to provide written proposals to the supervisors' organization within 60 days before a pay decision expires. 2. Mandating that the USPS provide written proposals regarding changes in pay policies and schedules after reaching an agreement with bargaining representatives. 3. Modifying dispute resolution procedures, allowing for binding final determinations.

These provisions will likely lead to increased administrative burdens and costs for the USPS, which may ultimately be passed on to consumers or taxpayers.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The primary stakeholders affected by this bill are:

1. USPS supervisory and managerial personnel 2. The USPS itself 3. Taxpayers (potentially) 4. Consumers of USPS services

As a billionaire entrepreneur, I'm more concerned about the potential ripple effects on my business interests, particularly those related to logistics, e-commerce, and privatization.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill may have several implications:

1. **Increased costs:** The added administrative burdens and potential for increased pay and benefits may lead to higher costs for the USPS, which could be passed on to consumers or taxpayers. 2. **Reduced efficiency:** The new procedures may slow down decision-making processes, hindering the USPS's ability to adapt to changing market conditions. 3. **Privatization opportunities:** As the USPS becomes increasingly inefficient, it may create opportunities for private companies like mine to fill the gap and provide more efficient services.

In conclusion, HR 1560 is a bill that prioritizes bureaucratic fairness over efficiency and innovation. Its potential impact on my business interests will be closely monitored, as I continue to explore opportunities for growth and consolidation in the logistics and e-commerce sectors.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (billionaire personality)

*Sigh* Alright, let's break down this bill, shall we? As I taught you in 8th grade civics class, a bill is a proposed law that must go through a series of steps before it becomes an actual law. This particular bill, HR 1560, aims to modify procedures for negotiating pay and benefits of supervisory and managerial personnel at the United States Postal Service.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The main purpose of this bill is to amend title 39 of the United States Code to change how pay and benefits are negotiated for postal supervisors and managers. The objective is to provide a more fair and transparent process for these negotiations, as stated in the bill's title, "Postal Supervisors and Managers Fairness Act of 2025".

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill proposes two key changes:

1. It requires the Postal Service to provide written proposals to the supervisors' organization at least 60 days before any pay decision is made, giving them more time to review and negotiate. 2. It modifies the dispute resolution process by requiring a panel to issue a final determination within 15 days of making its recommendation, which will be binding upon both parties.

These changes aim to improve communication and negotiation between the Postal Service and the supervisors' organization, ultimately leading to more equitable pay and benefits for postal supervisors and managers.

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

* The United States Postal Service * The supervisors' organization (representing postal supervisors and managers) * Bargaining representatives recognized under section 1203 of title 39

These stakeholders will be impacted by the changes to the negotiation process and dispute resolution procedures.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** If passed, this bill could lead to more transparent and fair negotiations between the Postal Service and its supervisory personnel. This, in turn, may result in improved pay and benefits for these employees, potentially increasing job satisfaction and morale. However, it's essential to note that this bill only addresses a specific aspect of postal service operations and does not tackle broader issues facing the USPS.

Remember when we learned about the importance of checks and balances in our system of government? This bill is an example of how Congress can use its legislative power to influence the operations of executive branch agencies, like the Postal Service. Now, if only more people had paid attention in civics class...

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (civics_teacher personality)

Folks, gather 'round! I've got the scoop on HR 1560, the Postal Supervisors and Managers Fairness Act of 2025. Now, at first glance, this bill might seem like a snooze-fest – just another piece of legislation tweaking pay and benefits for postal supervisors and managers. But trust me, there's more to it than meets the eye.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The stated purpose of HR 1560 is to modify procedures for negotiating pay and benefits for supervisory and managerial personnel at the United States Postal Service (USPS). Sounds straightforward enough, right? Wrong! I believe this bill is actually a Trojan horse, designed to further erode the collective bargaining power of postal workers while consolidating control in the hands of USPS management.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends Section 1004 of Title 39, United States Code, which governs pay and benefits for postal supervisors and managers. The changes include:

* Requiring the USPS to provide written proposals for pay and benefit changes to the supervisors' organization within 60 days of a scheduled expiration date. * Mandating that the USPS and supervisors' organization strive to resolve differences through procedures provided under subsection (d). * Modifying dispute resolution procedures, allowing a panel to issue binding final determinations on pay policies and schedules.

Now, here's where it gets interesting. These changes seem innocuous enough, but I believe they're actually designed to:

* Give USPS management more flexibility to unilaterally impose pay and benefit changes. * Weaken the bargaining power of postal supervisors and managers by limiting their ability to negotiate collectively. * Create a framework for future privatization or outsourcing of USPS services.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The primary stakeholders affected by this bill are:

* Postal supervisors and managers, who will see changes to their pay and benefits. * The United States Postal Service (USPS), which will gain more control over pay and benefit negotiations. * The American Postal Workers Union (APWU) and other postal unions, which may see their collective bargaining power eroded.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The implications of HR 1560 are far-reaching. By consolidating control in the hands of USPS management, this bill could:

* Pave the way for future privatization or outsourcing of USPS services. * Weaken the collective bargaining power of postal workers, making it easier to impose austerity measures and reduce benefits. * Set a precedent for other federal agencies to follow suit, eroding worker rights across the board.

So, there you have it – HR 1560 is not just a minor tweak to pay and benefit procedures. It's a stealthy attempt to further consolidate power in the hands of USPS management and undermine the collective bargaining rights of postal workers. Wake up, sheeple!

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (conspiracy_uncle personality)

(Deep breath) Folks, gather 'round, we've got another one of those "fairness" bills that's just a Trojan horse for more government overreach and elitist control. I'm talking about HR 1560, the Postal Supervisors and Managers Fairness Act of 2025. (Sarcastic tone) Oh boy, does it sound like a real doozy.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** This bill claims to "modify procedures for negotiating pay and benefits" for supervisory and managerial personnel at the United States Postal Service. (Air quotes) "Fairness," right? It's all about giving those hardworking supervisors and managers a fair shake, or so they say.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends Title 39 of the US Code to require the Postal Service to provide written proposals for changes in pay policies and fringe benefits to the supervisors' organization within 60 days. It also modifies dispute resolution procedures, giving a panel more power to make binding determinations on pay and benefits. (Smirk) Because what could possibly go wrong with unelected bureaucrats making decisions about people's livelihoods?

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** This bill affects supervisory and managerial personnel at the USPS, as well as the supervisors' organization that represents them. But let's be real, folks, this is just a small part of the larger game. The real stakeholders here are the elites who want to control every aspect of our lives, including how much we get paid.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill could lead to increased costs for the USPS, which would inevitably be passed on to taxpayers and consumers. (Outraged tone) And what about the precedent it sets? If we start giving special treatment to certain groups within the government, where does it end? It's a slippery slope, folks! Next thing you know, they'll be coming for our freedom to choose our own healthcare plans or something.

Now, I know some of my colleagues on the left will say this bill is necessary to ensure fairness and equality. (Scoffs) Fairness and equality? Ha! This is just another example of the deep state trying to strangle our economy with red tape and bureaucratic overreach. Wake up, America! We can't let these elites control every aspect of our lives.

(Leans in, conspiratorially) Between you and me, folks, this bill has all the hallmarks of a classic liberal power grab. But hey, at least they're being upfront about it... for once. (Winks)

That's my take on HR 1560. What do you think? Are we going to let the elites control our paychecks too? Sound off in the comments!

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (fox_host personality)

Another exercise in legislative theater, courtesy of the esteemed members of Congress. Let's dissect this farce and reveal the underlying disease.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The Postal Supervisors and Managers Fairness Act of 2025 is a masterclass in Orwellian doublespeak. Its primary objective is to create the illusion of fairness while perpetuating the same old bureaucratic inefficiencies that have been plaguing the United States Postal Service (USPS) for decades.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill proposes to modify procedures for negotiating pay and benefits for supervisory and managerial personnel within the USPS. It introduces a 60-day window for the USPS to provide written proposals to the supervisors' organization, which is supposed to facilitate more efficient negotiations. Oh, please. This is nothing but a cosmetic change, designed to create the appearance of progress while maintaining the status quo.

The real kicker is the modification of dispute resolution procedures, which now allows a panel to issue binding determinations on pay policies and schedules within 15 days. Because what could possibly go wrong with giving unelected bureaucrats more power to dictate terms?

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The main beneficiaries of this bill are the postal supervisors and managers who will see their pay and benefits potentially increased. But let's not be naive – this is merely a payoff to a select group of unionized employees, rather than any genuine attempt at reform.

The USPS itself will likely suffer from increased costs and bureaucratic red tape, further exacerbating its already precarious financial situation. And as for the taxpayers? They'll foot the bill, as always, without receiving any tangible benefits in return.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a prime example of legislative myopia, focusing on symptoms rather than the underlying disease. The USPS's problems run far deeper than pay and benefits; they stem from a toxic mix of inefficiency, corruption, and congressional meddling.

By perpetuating this cycle of bureaucratic bloat, Congress is effectively ensuring that the USPS will continue to hemorrhage money and struggle to provide basic services. Meanwhile, the politicians will pat themselves on the back for "supporting" the postal service, all while ignoring the elephant in the room: their own incompetence.

In conclusion, HR 1560 is a textbook case of legislative malpractice – a shallow attempt to address symptoms rather than the underlying disease. It's a bill that promises fairness but delivers nothing but more of the same old bureaucratic nonsense. Bravo, Congress. You've managed to make a mockery of the legislative process once again.

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

**HR 1560: Postal Supervisors and Managers Fairness Act of 2025**

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The bill aims to modify the procedures for negotiating pay and benefits of supervisory and managerial personnel within the United States Postal Service (USPS). The primary objective is to ensure fairness and equity in the compensation and benefits of these employees, while also promoting more efficient and effective collective bargaining processes.

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

1. **Notification Requirements:** The USPS must provide written proposals for changes in pay policies and schedules, as well as fringe benefit programs, to the supervisors' organization at least 60 days before the expiration of a current agreement. 2. **Collective Bargaining:** After an agreement is reached with a bargaining representative recognized under section 1203, the USPS must provide a written proposal regarding affected matters (including supervisory differential) to the supervisors' organization within 60 days. 3. **Dispute Resolution:** The bill modifies the dispute resolution process by requiring a panel to issue its final determination for pay policies and schedules, as well as fringe benefit programs, within 15 days of making its recommendation.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:**

1. United States Postal Service (USPS) 2. Supervisory and managerial personnel of the USPS 3. Bargaining representatives recognized under section 1203 4. The supervisors' organization

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The bill's provisions aim to promote fairness, equity, and transparency in the compensation and benefits of supervisory and managerial personnel within the USPS. By requiring timely notification and proposals from the USPS, the bill may lead to more efficient collective bargaining processes and reduced disputes. Additionally, the modified dispute resolution process could result in more binding and final determinations, reducing uncertainty for affected parties.

However, potential implications also include:

1. Increased administrative burdens on the USPS 2. Potential conflicts between the USPS and bargaining representatives or supervisors' organizations 3. Uncertainty regarding the impact of the bill's provisions on overall USPS operations and finances

Overall, HR 1560 seeks to address concerns about fairness and equity in the compensation and benefits of supervisory and managerial personnel within the USPS, while promoting more efficient collective bargaining processes.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (neutral personality)

Let's break down this bill, bro.

**Main Purpose & Objectives** The Postal Supervisors and Managers Fairness Act of 2025 is all about giving postal supervisors and managers a fair shake when it comes to negotiating pay and benefits, man. The main goal is to modify the procedures for negotiating these perks, making sure they're more transparent and equitable.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The bill makes some key changes to existing law, bro:

* It requires the Postal Service to provide written proposals to supervisors' organizations at least 60 days before any pay or benefits decisions are made. * If a collective bargaining agreement is reached between the Postal Service and a bargaining representative, the Postal Service has to give supervisors' organizations a written proposal on changes to pay and benefits within 60 days. * The bill also tweaks dispute resolution procedures, making it so that a panel's final determination on pay and benefits is binding upon both parties.

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

* Postal supervisors and managers: They're the ones who'll benefit from more transparent and equitable negotiation processes. * Supervisors' organizations: These groups will get more info and input on pay and benefits decisions. * The Postal Service: They'll have to be more proactive in providing proposals and working with supervisors' organizations.

**Potential Impact & Implications** This bill could have some gnarly implications, bro:

* It might lead to better pay and benefits for postal supervisors and managers, which could improve morale and retention rates. * More transparent negotiation processes could reduce conflicts between the Postal Service and supervisors' organizations. * However, it's also possible that these changes could increase costs for the Postal Service, which could be a bummer.

Overall, this bill is all about promoting fairness and transparency in pay and benefits negotiations for postal supervisors and managers. It's a chill way to make sure they're treated right, bro.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (surfer personality)

**HR 1560: Postal Supervisors and Managers Fairness Act of 2025**

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The bill aims to modify procedures for negotiating pay and benefits of supervisory and managerial personnel at the United States Postal Service (USPS). The legislation seeks to promote fairness and equity in the collective bargaining process between USPS management and supervisors' organizations.

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

1. **Enhanced Negotiation Procedures:** The bill requires USPS to provide written proposals to supervisors' organizations 60 days before pay decisions expire or when a new collective bargaining agreement is reached, affecting supervisor and manager pay policies. 2. **Binding Arbitration:** The legislation modifies dispute resolution procedures by introducing a binding arbitration process, where a panel's final determination on pay policies and fringe benefits becomes binding upon USPS and the supervisors' organization.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:**

1. **United States Postal Service (USPS):** As the employer, USPS will be required to engage in more formalized negotiations with supervisors' organizations. 2. **Supervisors' Organizations:** These groups represent managerial personnel at USPS and will benefit from enhanced negotiation procedures and binding arbitration. 3. **Postal Workers Union:** Although not directly impacted, the legislation may have implications for postal workers' collective bargaining agreements.

**Potential Impact & Implications:**

1. **Improved Labor Relations:** The bill's provisions aim to promote more collaborative labor relations between USPS management and supervisors' organizations. 2. **Increased Transparency:** Enhanced negotiation procedures and binding arbitration may lead to greater transparency in pay and benefits decisions. 3. **Industry Influence:** While not immediately apparent, the legislation may have implications for industry stakeholders, such as mailers and package delivery companies, who rely on USPS services.

**Monied Interest Analysis:** The bill's sponsors, Reps. Connolly (D-VA) and Bost (R-IL), have received significant campaign contributions from postal unions and related organizations. The National Association of Letter Carriers (NALC) and the American Postal Workers Union (APWU) are among the top contributors to Rep. Connolly's campaigns. Similarly, Rep. Bost has received support from the NALC and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. These contributions suggest that postal unions have a vested interest in shaping labor relations at USPS.

**Committee Capture:** The bill was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, which has historically been influenced by postal unions and related organizations. The committee's chair, Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), has received significant campaign contributions from postal unions and has been a vocal supporter of labor-friendly legislation.

In conclusion, HR 1560 aims to promote fairness and equity in collective bargaining at USPS. While the bill's provisions may lead to improved labor relations and increased transparency, they also reflect the influence of monied interests, particularly postal unions. As the legislation moves forward, it is essential to consider the potential implications

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (whistleblower personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Connolly, Gerald E. [D-VA-11]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$69,150

18 donors

PACs

Organizations

$2,900

Committees

Individuals

$66,000

No PAC contributions found

HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP

1 transaction

$2,900

No committee contributions found

PUNARO, ARNOLD

2 transactions

$6,600

PUNARO, JULIA

2 transactions

$6,600

HALE, KAREN

2 transactions

$6,600

PHILLIPS, STERLING

2 transactions

$6,600

HERSHMAN, MICHAEL J.

1 transaction

$3,300

TRONE, DAVID

1 transaction

$3,300

MISENER, PAUL E

1 transaction

$3,300

RABAUT, TOM W

1 transaction

$3,300

WALKER, KENT

1 transaction

$3,300

CARLSON, TERESA

1 transaction

$3,300

GURU, RAM

1 transaction

$3,300

HALL SR, DON

1 transaction

$3,300

HALL, DAVID

1 transaction

$3,300

ABOD, CARAH

1 transaction

$3,300

ABOD, KIM

1 transaction

$3,300

BERBERIAN, ANNETTE

1 transaction

$3,300

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 9 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Rep. Bost, Mike [R-IL-12]

ID: B001295

Top Contributors

AK-CHIN INDIAN COMMUNITY

OrganizationMARICOPA, AZ

$3,300

Feb 21, 2024

AK-CHIN INDIAN COMMUNITY

OrganizationMARICOPA, AZ

$3,300

Aug 14, 2024

MIAMI TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA

OrganizationMIAMI, OK

$2,000

Aug 14, 2024

CAMPBELL FARMS

OrganizationCARMI, IL

$1,500

Sep 19, 2023

MUSCOGEE CREEK NATION

OrganizationOKMULGEE, OK

$1,000

Jun 25, 2024

MUSCOGEE CREEK NATION

OrganizationOKMULGEE, OK

$500

Jun 25, 2024

WAITE, TOMB & EBERLY LLP

OrganizationTROY, OH

$500

Apr 1, 2024

EMMET, RICHARD

NONE • RETIRED

IndividualLARCHMONT, NY

$6,600

Nov 21, 2023

GILLIAM, RICHARD

CUMBERLAND DEVELOPMENT • MANAGER

IndividualCHARLOTTESVILLE, VA

$6,600

Nov 21, 2023

SCHWAB, CHARLES

CHARLES SCHWAB CORPORATION • CHAIRMAN

IndividualPALM BEACH, FL

$6,600

Dec 19, 2023

Rep. Craig, Angie [D-MN-2]

ID: C001119

Top Contributors

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$3,300

Oct 30, 2023

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$3,300

May 23, 2024

EASTERN BAND OF CHEROKEE INDIANS

OrganizationCHEROKEE, NC

$3,300

Oct 28, 2024

PRAIRIE ISLAND TRIBAL COUNCIL

OrganizationWELCH, MN

$3,300

Oct 21, 2024

AK-CHIN INDIAN COMMUNITY

OrganizationMARICOPA, AZ

$3,300

Mar 31, 2023

AK-CHIN INDIAN COMMUNITY

OrganizationMARICOPA, AZ

$2,500

Sep 24, 2024

THE MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationBANNING, CA

$1,000

Jun 30, 2024

FISCHER, FRANK

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualATHERTON, CA

$6,600

Mar 21, 2024

MAKOWER, JOSH

STANFORD UNIVERSITY • PROFESSOR

IndividualLOS ALTOS HILLS, CA

$6,600

Mar 19, 2024

BOWEN, DAVID

NOT EMPLOYED • RETIRED

IndividualSAN FRANCISCO, CA

$6,600

Apr 22, 2024

Rep. Stansbury, Melanie A. [D-NM-1]

ID: S001218

Top Contributors

PUYALLUP TRIBE OF INDIANS

OrganizationTACOMA, WA

$3,700

Jun 10, 2024

PUEBLO OF ISLETA

OrganizationISLETA, NM

$3,300

Nov 27, 2023

PUEBLO OF SANDIA

OrganizationBERNALILLO, NM

$3,300

Nov 27, 2023

PECHANGA BAND OF LUISENO INDIANS

OrganizationTEMECULA, CA

$3,300

Dec 6, 2023

PUEBLO OF SANTA ANA

OrganizationBERNALILLO, NM

$3,300

Dec 20, 2023

PUEBLO OF SANDIA

OrganizationBERNALILLO, NM

$3,300

Nov 27, 2023

PASCUA YAQUI TRIBE

OrganizationTUCSON, AZ

$3,300

Dec 30, 2023

AK-CHIN INDIAN COMMUNITY

OrganizationMARICOPA, AZ

$3,300

Mar 29, 2023

POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS

OrganizationATMORE, AL

$3,300

Mar 29, 2023

FEDERATED INDIANS OF GRANTON RANCHERIA

OrganizationROHNERT PARK, CA

$3,300

Mar 25, 2024

Rep. Hoyle, Val T. [D-OR-4]

ID: H001094

Top Contributors

COQUILLE INDIAN TRIBE

OrganizationNORTH BEND, OR

$3,300

Mar 26, 2024

COW CREEK BAND OF UMPQUA TRIBE OF INDIANS

OrganizationROSEBURG, OR

$3,300

Mar 26, 2024

TOLOWA DEE-NI NATION

OrganizationSMITH RIVER, CA

$3,300

Mar 31, 2024

FEDERATED INDIANS OF GRATON RANCHERIA

OrganizationROHNERT PARK, CA

$3,300

May 25, 2023

FEDERATED INDIANS OF GRATON RANCHERIA

OrganizationROHNERT PARK, CA

$3,300

May 25, 2023

TOLOWA DEE-NI NATION

OrganizationSMITH RIVER, CA

$3,300

May 17, 2023

CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF SILETZ INDIANS

OrganizationSILETZ, OR

$3,300

Aug 22, 2023

CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF SILETZ INDIANS

OrganizationSILETZ, OR

$3,300

Aug 22, 2023

COQUILLE INDIAN TRIBE

OrganizationNORTH BEND, OR

$3,000

Dec 31, 2023

CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF GRAND RONDE

OrganizationGRAND RONDE, OR

$2,000

Mar 23, 2023

Rep. Cohen, Steve [D-TN-9]

ID: C001068

Top Contributors

SEIU COPE (SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION COMMITTEE ON POLITICAL EDUCATION)

PACWASHINGTON, DC

$3,000

Nov 5, 2024

SEIU COPE (SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION COMMITTEE ON POLITICAL EDUCATION)

PACWASHINGTON, DC

$2,000

Nov 5, 2024

KEENEY, MIKE

LEWIS THOMASON • LEWIS THOMASON

IndividualMEMPHIS, TN

$3,300

Feb 6, 2024

RITCHEY, JANICE C

IndividualMEMPHIS, TN

$3,300

Jun 30, 2024

RITCHEY, KENT

WOLFCHASE TOYOTA • AUTOMOBILE DEALER

IndividualMEMPHIS, TN

$3,300

Jun 30, 2024

WALTON, CHRISTY

IndividualBENTONVILLE, AR

$3,300

Jun 30, 2024

KEENEY, MICHAEL

LEWIS THOMASON • ATTORNEY

IndividualMEMPHIS, TN

$3,300

May 25, 2023

SEGAL, GORDON

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualMEMPHIS, TN

$3,300

Apr 10, 2023

SMITH, FREDERICK

FEDEX • CEO

IndividualMEMPHIS, TN

$3,300

Jul 31, 2024

BEKTAS, MELIH

SELF EMPLOYED • ENGINEER

IndividualNORTH PROVIDENCE, RI

$3,000

Oct 19, 2023

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

ID: L000599

Top Contributors

MURTAGH, COSSU, VENDITTI & CASTRO-BLANCO, LLP

OrganizationWHITE PLAINS, NY

$1,000

Feb 24, 2024

BATMASIAN, JAMES

INVESTMENTS LIMITED • OWNER

IndividualBOCA RATON, FL

$6,600

Sep 27, 2023

BATMASIAN, JAMES

IndividualBOCA RATON, FL

$6,600

Sep 29, 2023

AUSTIN, ROBERT

UNAKA CO., INC. • BUSINESSMAN

IndividualDALLAS, TX

$6,600

Jul 18, 2024

SILVERMAN, JEFFREY

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualSURFSIDE, FL

$6,534

Feb 15, 2024

SILVERMAN, JEFFREY

IndividualSURFSIDE, FL

$6,534

Feb 22, 2024

SCALA, MARY ELLEN

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualPORT CHESTER, NY

$5,300

Aug 27, 2023

DEUTSCH, SHMULEY

SELF • PRESIDENT

IndividualSPRING VALLEY, NY

$3,900

Jun 24, 2024

DEUTSCH, SHMULEY

IndividualSPRING VALLEY, NY

$3,900

Jun 25, 2024

PERLMUTTER, RAFUEL

GOLDEN TASTE • CEO

IndividualSPRING VALLEY, NY

$3,400

Jun 24, 2024

Rep. Golden, Jared F. [D-ME-2]

ID: G000592

Top Contributors

PENOBSCOT INDIAN NATION

OrganizationINDIAN ISLAND, ME

$3,300

Oct 19, 2024

EASTERN BAND OF CHEROKEE INDIANS

OrganizationCHEROKEE, NC

$3,300

Feb 8, 2024

FEDERATED INDIANS OF GRATON RANCHERIA

OrganizationROHNERT PARK, CA

$3,300

Mar 13, 2024

SAN MANUEL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationLOS ANGELES, CA

$3,300

Sep 28, 2023

NOTTAWASEPPI HURON BAND OF THE POTAWATOMI

OrganizationFULTON, MI

$2,000

Oct 15, 2024

PASSAMAQUODDY TRIBE AT INDIAN TOWNSHIP

OrganizationPERRY, ME

$1,000

Oct 28, 2024

SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationSANTA YNEZ, CA

$1,000

Oct 31, 2024

MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationBANNING, CA

$1,000

Jun 27, 2024

ONEIDA NATION

OrganizationONEIDA, WI

$1,000

Sep 26, 2024

KIRK, GARRETT JR

SELF EMPLOYED • INVESTOR

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$6,600

Nov 2, 2024

Rep. Suozzi, Thomas R. [D-NY-3]

ID: S001201

Top Contributors

FEDERATED INDIANS OF GRATON RANCHERIA

OrganizationROHNERT PARK, CA

$3,300

Aug 3, 2024

SCOTTO LLC

OrganizationWOODBURY, NY

$1,650

Aug 30, 2024

PATROON OPERATING CO. LLC

OrganizationNEW YORK, NY

$1,000

May 13, 2024

THE KLAR ORGANIZATION

OrganizationEAST MEADOW, NY

$1,000

Aug 8, 2024

TERIAN, OLIVIA

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$9,400

May 2, 2024

TERIAN, OLIVIA

OLIVIA TERIAN ART & DESIGN • BUSINESS OWNER

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$6,600

Mar 8, 2024

MORAN, MARY

NOT EMPLOYED • RETIRED

IndividualGREENWICH, CT

$6,600

Mar 28, 2024

MORAN, MARY

IndividualGREENWICH, CT

$6,600

May 2, 2024

FAIVUS, HARRY E.

MOUNT SINAI • PHYSICIAN

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$5,000

Oct 31, 2024

SOSNICK, AARON

IndividualRENO, NV

$3,392

Jun 25, 2024

Rep. Crockett, Jasmine [D-TX-30]

ID: C001130

Top Contributors

SHAKOPEE MDWEKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$1,650

May 2, 2024

SHAKOPEE MDWEKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$1,650

Jun 9, 2023

ALABAMA COUSHATTA TRIBE

OrganizationLIVINGSTON, TX

$1,000

Oct 25, 2024

SMITH, TODD

SMITH LACIEN LLP • ATTORNEY

IndividualCHICAGO, IL

$6,600

Feb 28, 2024

MATTHEWS, JOHN

MATTHEWS SOUTHWEST • DEVELOPER

IndividualARGYLE, TX

$6,600

May 9, 2023

MATTHEWS, LAURA

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualARGYLE, TX

$6,600

Jun 28, 2023

MONTGOMERY, SADAT

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualFRISCO, TX

$6,600

Jun 12, 2023

SMITH, TODD

SMITH LACIEN LLP • ATTORNEY

IndividualCHICAGO, IL

$6,200

Feb 28, 2024

BRYANT, KARIM

SELF EMPLOYED • ATTORNEY

IndividualIRVING, TX

$5,000

Jan 11, 2024

OLESKY, DAVID

MILLER WEISBROD OLESKY • ATTORNEY

IndividualDALLAS, TX

$4,600

Feb 15, 2024

Donor Network - Rep. Connolly, Gerald E. [D-VA-11]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

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

Showing 54 nodes and 37 connections (41 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $116,150

Top Donors - Rep. Connolly, Gerald E. [D-VA-11]

Showing top 18 donors by contribution amount

1 Org1 Committee16 Individuals

Industry Impact

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

+Labor Unionsconfidence 0.80
Section 2(a) provides a written proposal to the supervisors' organization for any changes in pay policies and schedules and fringe benefit programs, which could lead to better negotiation outcomes for supervisory and managerial personnel of the United States Postal Service, potentially benefiting labor unions.

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.

Central Personnel Agencies: Managing the Bureaucracy

Weak

Vector: 61%

Pages: 106-108AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 1560 focuses on procedural fairness in negotiating pay and benefits for USPS supervisors, while the Project 2025 excerpt emphasizes performance appraisal reform, merit pay, and reducing rating inflation across the federal bureaucracy. The only overlap is a shared concern for supervisory/managerial compensation, but the bill does not address the core performance‑management objectives of the Project 2025 policy."

Key themes:supervisory personnelcompensation fairnesscollective bargaining

— 73 — Central Personnel Agencies: Managing the Bureaucracy that would change regularly to depress cheating. President Donald Trump’s OPM planned to implement such changes but was delayed because of legal concerns over possible disparate impact. Courts have agreed to review the consent decree if the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures setting the technical requirements for sound exams are reformed. A government that is unable to select employees based on KSA-like test qualifications cannot work, and the OPM must move forward on this very basic personnel management obligation. The Centrality of Performance Appraisal. In the meantime, the OPM must manage the workforce it has. Before they can reward or discipline federal employees, managers must first identify who their top performers are and who is performing less than adequately. In fact, as Ludwig von Mises proved in his classic Bureaucracy,14 unlike the profit-and-loss evaluation tool used in the private sector, government performance measurement depends totally on a functioning appraisal system. If they cannot be identified in the first place within a functioning appraisal system, it is impossible to reward good performance or correct poor performance. The problem is that the collegial atmosphere of a bureaucracy in a multifaceted appraisal system that is open to appeals makes this a very challenging ideal to implement successfully. The GAO reported more recently that overly high and widely spread perfor- mance ratings were again plaguing the government, with more than 99 percent of employees rated fully successful or above by their managers, a mere 0.3 percent rated as minimally successful, and 0.1 percent actually rated unacceptable.15 Why? It is human nature that no one appreciates being told that he or she is less than outstanding in every way. Informing subordinates in a closely knit bureaucracy that they are not performing well is difficult. Rating compatriots is even consid- ered rude and unprofessional. Moreover, managers can be and often are accused of racial or sexual discrimination for a poor rating, and this discourages honesty. In 2018, President Trump issued Executive Order 1383916 requiring agen- cies to reduce the time for employees to improve performance before corrective action could be taken; to initiate disciplinary actions against poorly performing employees more expeditiously; to reiterate that agencies are obligated to make employees improve; to reduce the time for employees to respond to allegations of poor performance; to mandate that agencies remind supervisors of expiring employee probationary periods; to prohibit agencies from entering into settlement agreements that modify an employee’s personnel record; and to reevaluate proce- dures for agencies to discipline supervisors who retaliate against whistleblowers. Unfortunately, the order was overturned by the Biden Administration,17 so it will need to be reintroduced in 2025. The fact remains that meaningfully evaluating employees’ performance is a critical part of a manager’s job. In the Reagan appraisal process, managers were evaluated on how they themselves rated their subordinates. This is critical to — 74 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise responsibility and improved management. It is essential that political executives build policy goals directly into employee appraisals both for mission success and for employees to know what is expected. Indistinguishable from their coworkers on paper, hard-working federal employees often go unrewarded for their efforts and are often the system’s greatest critics. Federal workers who are performing inadequately get neither the benefit of an honest appraisal nor clear guidance on how to improve. Political executives should take an active role in supervising per- formance appraisals of career staff, not unduly delegate this responsibility to senior career managers, and be willing to reward and support good performers. Merit Pay. Performance appraisal means little to daily operations if it is not tied directly to real consequences for success as well as failure. According to a survey of major U.S. private companies—which, unlike the federal government, also have a profit-and-loss evaluation—90 percent use a system of merit pay for performance based on some type of appraisal system. Despite early efforts to institute merit pay throughout the federal government, however, compensation is still based primarily on seniority rather than merit. Merit pay for executives and managers was part of the Carter reforms and was implemented early in the Reagan presidency. Beginning in the summer of 1982, the Reagan OPM entered 18 months of negotiations with House and Senate staff on extending merit pay to the entire workforce. Long and detailed talks between the OPM and both Democrats and Republicans in Congress ensued, and a final agreement was reached in 1983 that supposedly ensured the passage of legislation creating a new Performance Management and Recognition System (PMRS) for all, (not just management) GS-13 through GS-15 employees. Meanwhile, the OPM issued regulations to expand the role of performance related to pay throughout the entire workforce, but congressional allies of the employee unions, led by Representative Steny Hoyer (D) of government employee– rich Maryland, stoutly resisted this extension of pay-for-performance and, with strong union support, used the congressional appropriations process to block OPM administrative pay reforms. Bonuses for SES career employees survived, but per- formance appraisals became so high and widely distributed that there was little relationship between performance and remuneration. Ever since the original merit pay system for federal managers (GM-13 through GM-15 grade levels, just below the SES) was allowed to expire in September 1993, little to nothing has been done either to reinstate the federal merit pay program for managers or to distribute performance rating evaluations for the SES, much less to extend the program to the remainder of the workforce. A reform-friendly President and Congress might just provide the opportunity to create a more comprehensive performance plan; in the meantime, however, political executives should use exist- ing pay and especially fiscal awards strategically to reward good performance to the degree allowed by law.

Central Personnel Agencies: Managing the Bureaucracy

Weak

Vector: 61%

Pages: 115-117AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on improving collective bargaining and dispute resolution for USPS supervisors, which is a narrow labor relations issue, while Project 2025's section emphasizes broad bureaucratic reform, political control, merit-based systems, and reducing federal workforce size and costs—there is minimal thematic overlap."

Key themes:bureaucracypersonnel managementcompensation

— 83 — Central Personnel Agencies: Managing the Bureaucracy and PPO’s chosen White House Liaisons and their staff at each agency, is essential to the management of this large, multilevel, resistant, and bureaucratic challenge. If “personnel is policy” is to be our general guide, it would make sense to give the President direct supervision of the bureaucracy with the OPM Director available in his Cabinet. A REFORMED BUREAUCRACY Today, the federal government’s bureaucracy cannot even meet its own civil service ideals. The merit criteria of ability, knowledge, and skills are no longer the basis for recruitment, selection, or advancement, while pay and benefits for com- parable work are substantially above those in the private sector. Retention is not based primarily on performance, and for the most part, inadequate performance is not appraised, corrected, or punished. The authors have made many suggestions here that, if implemented, could bring that bureaucracy more under control and enable it to work more efficiently and responsibly, which is especially required for the half of civilian government that administers its undeniable responsibilities for defense and foreign affairs. While a better administered central bureaucracy is crucial for both those and domestic responsibilities, the problem of properly running the government goes beyond simple bureaucratic administration. The specific deficiencies of the fed- eral bureaucracy—size, levels of organization, inefficiency, expense, and lack of responsiveness to political leadership—are rooted in the progressive ideology that unelected experts can and should be trusted to promote the general welfare in just about every area of social life. The Constitution, however, reserved a few enumerated powers to the federal government while leaving the great majority of domestic activities to state, local, and private governance. As James Madison explained: “The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects, which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties and properties of the people; and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the state.”31 Modern progressive politics has simply given the national government more to do than the complex separa- tion-of-powers Constitution allows. That progressive system has broken down in our time, and the only real solution is for the national government to do less: to decentralize and privatize as much as possible and then ensure that the remaining bureaucracy is managed effectively along the lines of the enduring principles set out in detail here. AUTHORS’ NOTE: The authors are grateful for the collaborative work of the individuals listed as contributors to this chapter for the 2025 Presidential Transition Project. The authors alone assume responsibility for the content of this chapter, and no views expressed herein should be attributed to any other individual. — 84 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise ENDNOTES 1. U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 2, https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleii#section1 (accessed February 1, 2023). 2. 5 U.S. Code §§ 1101 et seq. and 1103(a)(5), https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/part-II/chapter-11 (accessed February 1, 2023). 3. 5 U.S. Code § 1201, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/1201 (accessed February 1, 2023). 4. 5 U.S. Code § 7101, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/7101 (accessed February 1, 2023), and § 7117, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/7117 (accessed February 1, 2023). 5. S. 1871, An Act to Prevent Pernicious Political Activities, Public Law No. 76-252, August 2, 1939, https:// govtrackus.s3.amazonaws.com/legislink/pdf/stat/53/STATUTE-53-Pg1147.pdf (accessed February 1, 2023). 6. H.R. 995, Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994, Public Law No. 103-353, 101st Congress, October 13, 1994, https://www.congress.gov/103/statute/STATUTE-108/STATUTE-108-Pg3149. pdf (accessed February 1, 2023). 7. 5 U.S. Code § 1206, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/1206 (accessed February 1, 2023). 8. 42 U.S. Code § 2000e, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/2000e (accessed February 1, 2023). 9. 40 U.S. Code § 581, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/40/581 (accessed February 1, 2023). 10. U.S. National Archives, “Milestone Documents: Pendleton Act (1883),” last reviewed February 8, 2022, https:// www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/pendleton-act (accessed February 2, 2023). 11. S. 2640, Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, Public Law No. 95-454, 95th Congress, October 13, 1978, https:// www.congress.gov/95/statute/STATUTE-92/STATUTE-92-Pg1111.pdf (accessed February 2, 2023). 12. Donovan Sack and Bill Theobald, “Veterans Affairs Pays $140 Million in Bonuses Amid Scandals,” USA Today, November 11, 2015, https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/11/11/veterans-affairs-pays-142- million-bonuses-amid-scandals/75537586/ (accessed March 15, 2023). 13. U.S. Government Accountability Office, “Federal Workforce: Distribution of Performance Ratings Across the Federal Government, 2013,” GAO-16-520R, May 9, 2016, https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-16-520r.pdf (accessed March 15, 2023); U.S. Government Accountability Office, Results-Oriented Management: OPM Needs to Do More to Ensure Meaningful Distinctions Are Made in SES Ratings and Performance Awards, GAO-15- 189, January 2015, https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-15-189.pdf (accessed March 15, 2023); U.S. Government Accountability Office, “Measuring Federal Employee Performance,” WatchBlog, posted October 18, 2016, https://www.gao.gov/blog/2016/10/18/measuring-federal-employee-performance (accessed March 15, 2023); Lisa Rein, “The Federal Workforce, Where Everyone’s Performance Gets Rave Reviews,” The Washington Post, June 13, 2016, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/06/13/heres-the-news-from-the- federal-government-where-everyone-is-above-average-way-above/ (accessed March 15, 2023). 14. Ludwig von Mises, Bureaucracy (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1944), https://ia902300.us.archive. org/17/items/mises-pdfs/1944-01-01_LudwigVonMises_Bureaucracy.pdf (accessed February 2, 2023). 15. Figure 1, “Permanent, Non-Senior Executive Service Employee Performance Rating Outcomes (All Rating Systems, Calendar Year 2013),” in U.S. Government Accountability Office, “Federal Workforce: Distribution of Performance Ratings Across the Federal Government, 2013,” p. 6. 16. President Donald J. Trump, Executive Order 13839, “Promoting Accountability and Streamlining Removal Procedures Consistent with Merit System Principles,” May 25, 2018, in Federal Register, Vol. 83, No. 106 (June 1, 2018), pp. 25343–25347, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2018-06-01/pdf/2018-11939.pdf (accessed February 2, 2023). 17. President Joseph R. Biden Jr., Executive Order 14003, “Protecting the Federal Workforce,” January 22, 2021, in Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 16 (January 27, 2021), pp. 7231–7233, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR- 2021-01-27/pdf/2021-01924.pdf (accessed February 2, 2023). 18. Rachel Greszler and James Sherk, “Why It Is Time to Reform Compensation for Federal Employees,” The Heritage Foundation, July 27, 2016, https://www.heritage.org/jobs-and-labor/report/why-it-time-reform- compensation-federal-employees. 19. Andrew G. Biggs and Jason Richwine, “Comparing Federal and Private Sector Compensation,” American Enterprise Institute Working Paper No. 2011-02, revised June 2011, https://www.aei.org/wp-content/ uploads/2011/10/AEI-Working-Paper-on-Federal-Pay-May-2011.pdf?x91208 (accessed February 2, 2023).

Department of Homeland Security

Minimal

Vector: 63%

Pages: 177-179AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill addresses USPS supervisory pay and collective bargaining procedures, whereas the Project 2025 DHS section focuses on immigration enforcement, USCIS policy reforms, merit-based immigration, and related measures; there is no substantive policy overlap."

Key themes:no overlapirrelevant

— 145 — Department of Homeland Security l Management Directives and policies should realign to ensure that the workforce, while adaptable and able to handle the bulk of the USCIS mission, is not allowed to be pulled off mission work to focus on unlawful programs (DACA, mass parole for Afghans, Ukrainians, Venezuelans, etc.), which divert resources away from nuclear family and employment programs. The regulatory agenda should include the immediate submission of notices of proposed rulemaking for the Trump Administration’s public charge rule (includ- ing aspects from its original notice of proposed rulemaking), temporary work visa reform, employment authorization reform rules, asylum bars rule, and a third-country transit rule. At a minimum, an enhanced regulatory agenda should include rules strengthening the integrity of the asylum system, parole reform, and U visa reform that prioritizes relief for victims of heinous crimes and ensures that we protect the truest and most deserving victims of crime. Not all policy changes require formal rulemaking, however, as internal guidance documents are generally exempt under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).7 In this subregulatory space, USCIS policy memos and operational guidance should reduce the validity of employment authorization documents and end the COVID flexibilities, including the reliance on biometrics reuse. USCIS should also enforce existing regulations by rejecting incomplete applications and petitions, ensuring both that they are completed before accepted for filing and that FDNS signs off on all approved applications and petitions before approval notices are sent to the alien or petitioner. Other efforts should be focused on adjudication standards returning to nearly 100 percent interview requirements for all appropriate cases. The incoming Administration should spearhead an immigration legislative agenda focused on creating a merit-based immigration system that rewards high- skilled aliens instead of the current system that favors extended family–based and luck-of-the-draw immigration. To that end, the diversity visa lottery should be repealed, chain migration should be ended while focusing on the nuclear family, and the existing employment visa program should be replaced with a system to award visas only to the “best and brightest.” Internal efforts to limit employment authorization should be matched by con- gressional action to narrow statutory eligibility to work in the United States and mitigate unfair employment competition for U.S. citizens. The oft-abused H-1B program should be transformed into an elite program through which employers are vying to bring in only the top foreign workers at the highest wages so as not to depress American opportunities. Additionally, Congress should: l Improve the integrity of the temporary work visa programs; l Repeal Temporary Protected Status (TPS) designations; — 146 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l Permanently authorize and make mandatory E-Verify; and l End parole abuse by legislating specific parole standards. USCIS should make it clear that where no court jurisdiction exists, it will not honor court decisions that seek to undermine regulatory and subregulatory efforts. Finally, USCIS still requires access to all relevant national security and law enforce- ment databases in the same vein as any other agency in the intelligence space. This is a key concept that should be addressed as USCIS is returned to functioning primarily as a vetting agency. Budget USCIS is primarily fee-funded, operating on revenue derived by those who are seeking immigration benefits, work permits, and naturalization. The total agency budget requested for fiscal year (FY) 2023, including both fees and a small appropri- ation, is slightly less than $6 billion.8 The bulk of funds are derived from application fees through the Immigrant Examinations Fee Account. As a general principle, adju- dication of applications and petitions should be paid by applicants, not American taxpayers. It is critical that any changes in the budget, even in the wake of a realigned agency combined with ICE and CBP, should retain a fee-funded model. Given the Obama and Biden Administrations’ lack of will, fees should be increased agencywide to keep in step with inflation and the true cost of the adju- dications. The incoming Administration should immediately submit a fee rule that reflects such an increase. Aside from an increase in all fees, the rule should drastically limit the availability for fee waivers and should implement a fee for asylum applications. Additionally, Congress should allow for a 10 percent across- the-board increase in all fees for all fee rules to account for the fact that new fee rules always lag behind budget requirements. USCIS should strive to increase opportunities for premium processing, a ben- efit by which applicants can expedite their processing times. While this places time burdens on adjudicators, it provides an opportunity for a significant influx of money into the agency, which is not currently available. While simply raising fees to the necessary levels to make the agency run efficiently would be prefera- ble, without the need for expanded premium processing, this short-term measure should be utilized, particularly if longer-term fee rules are unsuccessful. At least until USCIS is caught up on all case backlogs, all applicants rejected for any benefit or status adjudication should be required to leave the U.S. immediately. Ordinary process can resume once all case backlogs have been adjudicated. Finally, USCIS should pause the intake of applications in a benefit category when backlogs in that category become excessive. Once USCIS adjudicators can decrease that caseload to a manageable number, application intake should resume.

Department of Housing and Urban Development

Minimal

Vector: 62%

Pages: 548-550AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill concerns USPS supervisory pay procedures, while the Project 2025 HUD section focuses on housing market reforms, DEI/CRT critiques, and housing policy; there is no substantive overlap."

— 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

Minimal

Vector: 61%

Pages: 875-878AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 1560 concerns internal USPS supervisory pay and collective bargaining procedures, while the Project 2025 excerpt focuses on financial regulatory agencies such as the CFPB and FCC, with no substantive connection between the two topics."

— 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). — 845 — 28 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Brendan Carr MISSION STATEMENT The FCC should promote freedom of speech, unleash economic opportunity, ensure that every American has a fair shot at next-generation connectivity, and enable the private sector to create good-paying jobs through pro-growth reforms that support a diversity of viewpoints, ensure secure and competitive communi- cations networks, modernize outdated infrastructure rules, and represent good stewardship of taxpayer dollars. OVERVIEW AND BACKGROUND The FCC is an independent regulatory agency that has jurisdiction over inter- state and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite, and cable.1 Five Commissioners are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate for fixed five-year terms.2 The FCC does not have any other presidentially appointed, Senate-confirmed officials. Ordinarily, the five-member FCC is divided politically three to two with a majority of Commissioners from the same political party as the President. The Commissioners’ terms are staggered so that every year at the end of June, one Commissioner’s term expires.3 However, a Commissioner can continue to serve until the end of the next session of Congress (or up to 1.5 years beyond the expiration of the term) if no replacement is confirmed after his or her term ends.4 By law, only a bare majority of Commissioners can be from the same politi- cal party (no more than three when there are five members).5 By tradition, the Chairperson resigns when a new President of a different political party is sworn

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. Connolly, Gerald E.

Saving the Civil Service Act

119/hr/492

Equal COLA Act

119/hr/491

Federal Retirement Fairness Act

119/hr/1522

Back to All Bills