New Collar Jobs Act of 2025
Download PDFSponsored by
Rep. Lieu, Ted [D-CA-36]
ID: L000582
Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law
Track this bill's progress through the legislative process
Latest Action
Invalid Date
Introduced
đź“Ť Current Status
Next: The bill will be reviewed by relevant committees who will debate, amend, and vote on it.
Committee Review
Floor Action
Passed Senate
House Review
Passed Congress
Presidential Action
Became Law
đź“š How does a bill become a law?
1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.
2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.
3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.
4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.
5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.
6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.
7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!
Bill Summary
Another "solution" from our esteemed lawmakers, because what we really need is more Band-Aids on a bullet wound. The New Collar Jobs Act of 2025 - how quaint.
**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The bill's primary objective is to increase cybersecurity education and job growth, allegedly addressing the shortage of skilled workers in this field. It's a noble goal, but let's not get too excited; we've seen this movie before.
**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:**
1. **Employee Cybersecurity Education Credit**: A new tax credit for employers who provide cybersecurity education and training to their employees. Because nothing says "cybersecurity" like a tax break. 2. **Student Loan Repayment for Certain Cybersecurity Employees**: Borrowers working in economically distressed areas can have part of their student loans forgiven if they make 36 consecutive monthly payments. A nice little carrot on a stick, but we'll get to the real motivations later.
**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:**
1. Employers: They get tax credits for "investing" in cybersecurity education. 2. Employees: They might receive training and potentially have student loans forgiven. 3. Cybersecurity industry: More funding and attention, yay! 4. Taxpayers: Footing the bill for these "incentives."
**Potential Impact & Implications:**
1. **Cynical ploy to attract votes**: This bill is a transparent attempt to appeal to voters concerned about job growth and national security. 2. **More pork barrel politics**: The tax credits and loan forgiveness programs will likely benefit large corporations and special interest groups, rather than small businesses or individuals. 3. **Ineffective solution**: Throwing money at the problem won't magically create skilled cybersecurity professionals. We need systemic changes in education and workforce development, not just Band-Aids. 4. **Unintended consequences**: By focusing on tax credits and loan forgiveness, we might inadvertently create a culture of dependency rather than encouraging genuine innovation and skill-building.
In conclusion, this bill is a classic case of "legislative theater" - all show, no substance. It's a desperate attempt to appear proactive while ignoring the underlying issues plaguing our education system and workforce development. But hey, at least it makes for good campaign rhetoric.
Related Topics
đź’° Campaign Finance Network
Rep. Lieu, Ted [D-CA-36]
Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle
No PAC contributions found
No committee contributions found
Donor Network - Rep. Lieu, Ted [D-CA-36]
Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.
Showing 27 nodes and 30 connections
Total contributions: $82,600
Top Donors - Rep. Lieu, Ted [D-CA-36]
Showing top 25 donors by contribution amount
Project 2025 Policy Matches
This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document. Higher similarity scores indicate stronger thematic connections.
Introduction
— 341 — Department of Education market prices and signals to influence educational borrowing, introducing consumer-driven accountability into higher education. Pell grants should retain their current voucher-like structure. If Congress is unwilling to reform federal student aid, then the next Adminis- tration should consider the following reforms: l Switch to fair-value accounting from FCRA accounting, and l Consolidate all federal loan programs into one new program that 1. Utilizes income-driven repayment, 2. Includes no interest rate subsidies or loan forgiveness, 3. Includes annual and aggregate limits on borrowing, and 4. Requires “skin in the game” from colleges to help hold them accountable for loan repayment. The Biden Administration has mercilessly pillaged the student loan portfolio for crass political purposes without regard to the needs of current taxpayers or future students. This must never happen again. l As detailed in Section III, the next Administration should work with Congress to spin off federal student aid into a new government corporation with professional governance and management. NEW POLICY PRIORITIES FOR 2025 AND BEYOND New Legislation That Should Be Prioritized For nearly 250 years, Congress has incorporated public and private institutions, including banks, the District of Columbia’s city government, and other organiza- tions that federal officials deem to be conducting operations in the public interest. Such charters offer a certain status to organizations, often viewed as a “seal of approval” according to one Congressional Research Service report, which can help these organizations in their fundraising and other advocacy efforts. When the nation’s largest teacher association, the National Education Associ- ation (NEA), cites its federal charter, it lends the NEA a level of significance and suggests an effectiveness that is not supported by evidence. In fact, the NEA and the nation’s other large teacher union, the American Federation of Teachers (AFT),
Introduction
— 341 — Department of Education market prices and signals to influence educational borrowing, introducing consumer-driven accountability into higher education. Pell grants should retain their current voucher-like structure. If Congress is unwilling to reform federal student aid, then the next Adminis- tration should consider the following reforms: l Switch to fair-value accounting from FCRA accounting, and l Consolidate all federal loan programs into one new program that 1. Utilizes income-driven repayment, 2. Includes no interest rate subsidies or loan forgiveness, 3. Includes annual and aggregate limits on borrowing, and 4. Requires “skin in the game” from colleges to help hold them accountable for loan repayment. The Biden Administration has mercilessly pillaged the student loan portfolio for crass political purposes without regard to the needs of current taxpayers or future students. This must never happen again. l As detailed in Section III, the next Administration should work with Congress to spin off federal student aid into a new government corporation with professional governance and management. NEW POLICY PRIORITIES FOR 2025 AND BEYOND New Legislation That Should Be Prioritized For nearly 250 years, Congress has incorporated public and private institutions, including banks, the District of Columbia’s city government, and other organiza- tions that federal officials deem to be conducting operations in the public interest. Such charters offer a certain status to organizations, often viewed as a “seal of approval” according to one Congressional Research Service report, which can help these organizations in their fundraising and other advocacy efforts. When the nation’s largest teacher association, the National Education Associ- ation (NEA), cites its federal charter, it lends the NEA a level of significance and suggests an effectiveness that is not supported by evidence. In fact, the NEA and the nation’s other large teacher union, the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), — 342 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise use litigation and other efforts to block school choice and advocate for additional taxpayer spending in education. They also lobbied to keep schools closed during the pandemic. All of these positions run contrary to robust research evidence showing positive outcomes for students from education choice policies; there is no conclusive evidence that more taxpayer spending on schools improves student outcomes; and evidence finds that keeping schools closed to in-person learning resulted in negative emotional and academic outcomes for students. Furthermore, the union promotes radical racial and gender ideologies in schools that parents oppose according to nationally representative surveys. l Congress should rescind the National Education Association’s congressional charter and remove the false impression that federal taxpayers support the political activities of this special interest group. This move would not be unprecedented, as Congress has rescinded the federal charters of other organizations over the past century. The NEA is a demonstrably radical special interest group that overwhelmingly supports left-of-center policies and policymakers. l Members should conduct hearings to determine how much federal taxpayer money the NEA has used for radical causes favoring a single political party. Parental Rights in Education and Safeguarding Students l Federal officials should protect educators and students in jurisdictions under federal control from racial discrimination by reinforcing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and prohibiting compelled speech. Specifically, no teacher or student in Washington, D.C., public schools, Bureau of Indian Education schools, or Department of Defense schools should be compelled to believe, profess, or adhere to any idea, but especially ideas that violate state and federal civil rights laws. By its very design, critical race theory has an “applied” dimension, as its found- ers state in their essays that define the theory. Those who subscribe to the theory believe that racism (in this case, treating individuals differently based on race) is appropriate—necessary, even—making the theory more than merely an analyti- cal tool to describe race in public and private life. The theory disrupts America’s Founding ideals of freedom and opportunity. So, when critical race theory is used as part of school activities such as mandatory affinity groups, teacher training programs in which educators are required to confess their privilege, or school
Introduction
— 384 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise DOE-backed loans and loan guarantees put taxpayers at undue risk, distort private-sector investment decisions, shift private money toward projects with political support, and create additional barriers to entry for companies that are outside of the government’s definition of “innovative” or for companies that choose not to participate. New Policies To the extent that DOE loan programs cannot be repealed, the new Adminis- tration should: l Strengthen due diligence and increase transparency in DOE loan programs. l Limit the use of new loan or loan guarantee authority to projects that will promote the reliability and resilience of the electric grid and other energy infrastructure and support national security objectives. l Establish clear mandatory qualifications requiring applicants to comply with the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act58 and to certify that they are not financed with any other local, state, or federal taxpayer-backed loan, loan guarantee, or bond (such as a state “green bank”). ADVANCED RESEARCH PROJECTS AGENCY–ENERGY (ARPA–E) Mission/Overview ARPA–E was created in 2007 as part of the America Competes (Creating Oppor- tunities to Meaningfully Promote Excellence in Technology Education) Act.59 Its statutory goals are “to enhance the economic and energy security of the United States through the development of energy technologies” that reduce “imports of energy from foreign sources;” reduce “energy-related emissions, including green- house gases;” improve “the energy efficiency of all economic sectors;” and “ensure that the United States maintains a technological lead in developing and deploying advanced energy technologies.”60 Some in Congress see ARPA–E as beneficial because the COMPETES Act pro- vides it with more bureaucratic flexibility than other federal programs are allowed. Its goals are essentially the same as those of DOE’s applied energy offices, but its structure is different, and it is focused around individual programs instead of around offices with longer-term agendas. — 385 — Department of Energy and Related Commissions Needed Reforms l Stop risking taxpayer dollars as venture capital for the private sector. ARPA–E tends to see its mission as bringing technology from idea to commercialization. Often called the investment trough, ARPA–E is effectively funding projects that the private sector is unwilling to fund. Taxpayers should not in effect be picking winners and losers—and having their dollars at risk but not gaining the economic rewards of success. l End duplicative efforts. Another problem is that ARPA–E’s mission is similar to the missions of DOE’s applied energy offices. If DOE’s applied energy offices are doing their jobs correctly, they will use Funding Opportunities Announcements, prizes, lab calls, and other funding mechanisms that are needed to accomplish a specific goal. In other words, ARPA–E is at best duplicating the work done by other DOE offices. New Policies l Eliminate ARPA-E. The next Administration should work with Congress to eliminate ARPA–E. The agency is unnecessary, risks taxpayer dollars, and interferes with risk-benefit decisions that should be made by the private sector. Budget Congress appropriated $427 million for ARPA–E in FY 2021, and slightly more than $700 million has been requested for FY 2023.61 FEDERAL ENERGY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (FEMP) Mission/Overview The Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP) describes its mission as working with “other federal agencies to meet energy-related goals, identify affordable solutions, facilitate public–private partnerships, and provide energy leadership to the country by identifying government best practices.”62 Congress has created a number of energy and energy efficiency requirements and guidelines for federal agencies,63 and FEMP works with those agencies to help them meet their congressionally mandated goals. Needed Reforms As the world’s largest single energy consumer, the federal government should use energy efficiently and cost-effectively—especially because the taxpayer is paying the energy bills. The Obama Administration required the federal govern- ment to set extrastatutory and aggressive goals regarding the use of renewable
Showing 3 of 5 policy matches
About These Correlations
Policy matches are calculated using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text. A score of 60% or higher indicates meaningful thematic overlap. This does not imply direct causation or intent, but highlights areas where legislation aligns with Project 2025 policy objectives.