To track taxpayer dollars sent to adversarial countries and foreign entities of concern, and for other purposes.

Bill ID: 119/hr/2917

Last Updated: April 14, 2025

To track taxpayer dollars sent to adversarial countries and foreign entities of concern, and for other purposes.

HR. 2917, 119th Congress — read as touching Private Equity & Hedge Funds.

The sponsor

Rep. Stefanik, Elise M. [R-NY-21]

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

The money

$143,950 raised

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

The alignment

85% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Federal Communications Commission" section, p. 885-887 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Invalid Date

Introduced

📍 Current Status

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

🏛️

Committee Review

🗳️

Floor Action

✅

Passed Senate

🏛️

House Review

🎉

Passed Congress

🖊️

Presidential Action

⚖️

Became Law

📚 How does a bill become a law?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bill Summary

Summary Style:

The TRACKS Act (HR 2917). A bill that attempts to impose transparency on the flow of taxpayer dollars to adversarial countries and foreign entities of concern. How quaint.

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

The primary objective of this legislation is to track and disclose subawards made by prime award recipients to foreign entities, particularly those located in countries deemed "of concern" or "foreign entities of concern." The bill aims to increase transparency and accountability in the allocation of federal funds.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

The TRACKS Act amends the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 by adding a new definition for "subaward" and requiring recipients of covered subawards to disclose data on these transactions. The bill also mandates that the Director issue guidance within 90 days of enactment to establish consistency in compliance.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

The affected parties include:

* Prime award recipients (e.g., contractors, grantees) * Subaward recipients (foreign entities and countries of concern) * Federal agencies responsible for administering awards * Taxpayers (ostensibly)

As a visionary entrepreneur and thought leader, I must emphasize that this bill's focus on transparency and accountability is...amusing. The real stakeholders are those who understand the intricacies of global finance and the importance of strategic investments.

**Potential Impact & Implications**

The TRACKS Act may lead to:

* Increased administrative burdens for prime award recipients and subaward recipients * Enhanced scrutiny of transactions involving foreign entities, potentially leading to delays or cancellations of awards * Greater transparency in federal funding allocations (though this is a double-edged sword, as it may also reveal sensitive information)

From my perspective, the TRACKS Act represents a minor speed bump on the road to progress. Its focus on transparency and accountability will likely lead to increased regulatory hurdles, stifling innovation and hindering the free flow of capital.

As I've stated before, "Regulation is a tax on innovation." This bill is no exception. The true impact will be felt by those who understand the value of strategic investments and the importance of navigating complex global financial landscapes.

In conclusion, the TRACKS Act is a minor annoyance, a fleeting obstacle in the grand scheme of things. Its implications are negligible compared to the vast opportunities awaiting those who dare to shape the future.

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Stefanik, Elise M. [R-NY-21]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$143,950

23 donors

PACs

$50

Organizations

$11,900

Committees

Individuals

$132,000

MAGGIE'S LIST- EAMARKS

1 transaction

$50

ONEIDA INDIAN NATION

2 transactions

$9,900

SAN MANUAL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

1 transaction

$2,000

No committee contributions found

FISHER, CYNTHIA A. MS.

1 transaction

$6,600

BERK, MICHAEL

1 transaction

$6,600

CUTLER, ROBERT

1 transaction

$6,600

DAVIS, ANN L.

1 transaction

$6,600

KRAFT, DANIEL

1 transaction

$6,600

FITZPATRICK, MARY

1 transaction

$6,600

BLAVATNIK, LEONARD MR.

1 transaction

$6,600

COHN, DOUGLAS

1 transaction

$6,600

LAKONISHOK, GUY

1 transaction

$6,600

ZALIK, DAVID

1 transaction

$6,600

ZALIK, HELEN

1 transaction

$6,600

LEON, BENJAMIN JR.

1 transaction

$6,600

PESKIN, BIANCA

1 transaction

$6,600

PESKIN, CRAIG

1 transaction

$6,600

SHAMAH, ALAN

1 transaction

$6,600

SHAMAH, JOSEPH

1 transaction

$6,600

ALVAREZ, MAXIMO

1 transaction

$6,600

REUS, SANDRA

1 transaction

$6,600

TAYLOR, MARGARETTA J. MS.

1 transaction

$6,600

OCH, DANIEL

1 transaction

$6,600

Donor Network - Rep. Stefanik, Elise M. [R-NY-21]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

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

Showing 61 nodes and 24 connections (60 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $143,950

Top Donors - Rep. Stefanik, Elise M. [R-NY-21]

Showing top 23 donors by contribution amount

1 PAC2 Orgs20 Individuals

Industry Impact

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

−Private Equity & Hedge Fundsconfidence 0.80
Section 2 of the bill amends the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act to require reporting of foreign subawards, which may increase regulatory burden on private equity firms and hedge funds investing in foreign entities
−Commercial Banksconfidence 0.70
Section 2 of the bill requires disclosure of data related to covered subawards, which may impact commercial banks providing financial services to entities receiving federal awards

Who funds the sponsor on these industries

For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Rep. Stefanik, Elise M. [R-NY-21])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

Private Equity & Hedge Funds$22,289
from 10 contributions
- ROWAN, MARC J.$6,600
- KLEINMAN, SCOTT$3,300
- KRONE, DAVID BRETT$3,300
- ZELTER, JAMES C.$3,300
- ZITO, JOHN$2,300
Commercial Banks$1,315
from 10 contributions
- DAVIS, DOUGLAS P. MR.$1,050
- DAVIS, DOUGLAS$150
- HENRY, STEFFANIE J. MRS.$115

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.

Federal Communications Commission

Strong

Vector: 62%

Pages: 885-887AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"Both the TRACKS Act and the Project 2025 FCC policy seek to increase transparency and oversight of financial relationships with foreign adversarial governments or entities, requiring disclosure of such ties to ensure accountability."

Key themes:foreign adversary transparencytracking federal fundsaccountability and oversightdisclosure requirements

Financial Regulatory Agencies

Weak

Vector: 62%

Pages: 866-868AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The TRACKS Act focuses on increasing transparency of federal spending to adversarial countries, while the Project 2025 Financial Regulatory Agencies section concerns internal reforms of the SEC and CFTC (e.g., administrative proceedings, enforcement delegation, IT spending, market rules). Both share a general theme of transparency and oversight, but they address different policy domains with little direct overlap."

Key themes:transparencyoversightaccountability

— 833 — Financial Regulatory Agencies l Eliminate all administrative proceedings (APs) within the SEC except for stop orders related to defective registration statements. The SEC enforcement system does not need to have both district court cases and APs. Alternatively, respondents should be allowed to elect whether an adjudication occurs in the SEC’s administrative law court or an ordinary Article III federal court.24 l End the practice of delegating the decision to initiate an enforcement case. The SEC Chairman—and possibly the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO)—should study whether other Commission delegation of authority to staff should be narrowed and whether sunsetting of such delegation of authority should be required. Congress should: l Require an Inspector General’s (or possibly a GAO) report regarding SEC information technology spending and contracting. Spending appears to be much too high, and IT contracting is poorly managed. l Statutorily limit the time for an investigation to two years with no extensions. Long investigations harm private parties and the quality of justice. With adequate management processes, the SEC should not need more than two years even for complicated matters. The SEC Chairman should: l Dramatically reduce the number of direct reports to the SEC Chairman. l Merge SEC offices that are performing similar functions. l Reduce the number of managers per employee. CFTC ADMINISTRATION AND IMPROVED COMMODITIES AND DERIVATIVES MARKETS Congress should: l Modernize the definition of commodity (which is now largely a laundry list of agricultural commodities)25 and clarify the treatment of digital assets. l Clarify through an express amendment to the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA)26 the circumstances that require a foreign swap trading platform to — 834 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise register with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) as a swap execution facility (SEF) under Sections 2(i)27 and 5h28 of the CEA. Currently, it is not clear whether having one or a small number of U.S. participants would require SEF registration under prior staff guidance, which has led foreign swap trading platforms to exclude all U.S. persons from their platforms or to go through the process of seeking an exemption from registration. l Amend Section 2 of the CEA to authorize the CFTC Chairman to remove the agency’s Executive Director without a Commission vote. l To augment Commissioners’ independence, establish funding amounts for the Commissioners’ offices by statute with adjustments for inflation, with no requirement for a Commissioner to obtain budget or expense approvals from the Chairman or the agency’s administrative staff. The CFTC should: l Allocate more resources to core agency functions rather than ancillary and support operations. l Replace the existing position limits rule, which reduces liquidity and makes markets more volatile, with further delegation of authority to the exchanges to set position limits and position accountability levels where appropriate for the relevant market. l Reduce overly prescriptive rules implementing the CFTC’s core principles. l Apply the definitions of “U.S. Person” and “Guarantee” in the CFTC’s 2020 rule on cross-border application of swaps regulations (2020 Cross-Border Rule)29 to the regulatory requirements that remain covered by the CFTC’s 2013 guidance on the subject (2013 Guidance).30 Currently, the definition of each of these foundational terms differs depending on whether the requirement in question is covered by the 2020 Cross-Border Rule or the 2013 Guidance. l Remove the regulatory categories of “affiliate conduit” and “foreign consolidated subsidiary” from the 2013 Guidance and the CFTC’s cross- border rule on margin for uncleared swaps,31 respectively. These categories were replaced by the concept of a “Significant Risk Subsidiary” for purposes of the 2020 Cross-Border Rule because of widespread market confusion and compliance difficulties arising from their broad and vague scope.

Federal Communications Commission

Weak

Vector: 62%

Pages: 885-887AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The TRACKS Act focuses on transparency in federal spending to foreign adversaries through subaward reporting, while the Project 2025 FCC policy centers on foreign ownership of FCC licenses, spectrum policy, rip-and-replace funding, and AI standards—areas not directly addressed by the bill. Both share a concern about foreign adversarial influence, but the mechanisms and domains differ significantly."

Key themes:foreign adversariestransparencynational securityoversight

— 852 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l Publish a foreign adversary transparency list. As part of the FCC’s ongoing work to secure our networks from entities that would do the bidding of our foreign adversaries, the FCC should do more to shine the light of transparency on the scope of the problem. To this end, the FCC should compile and publish a list of all entities that hold FCC authorizations, licenses, or other grants of authority with more than 10 percent ownership by foreign adversarial governments, including the governments of China, Russia, Iran, Syria, or North Korea. A bipartisan bill that would require the FCC to publish this type of list has been introduced in the House of Representatives by Representatives Elise Stefanik (R–NY), Ro Khanna (D– CA), and Mike Gallagher (R–WI).24 l Fully fund the federal “rip and replace” program. In 2019, Congress established a $1.9 billion Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Reimbursement Program (known colloquially as the “rip and replace” program) to reimburse communications providers for the reasonable expenses they would incur to remove, replace, and dispose of insecure Huawei and ZTE gear. However, $1.9 billion is about $3 billion short of the total amount of funding needed to complete the rip and replace process. A new Administration should ensure that the program is fully funded and should look first at repurposing and applying unused COVID-era emergency funds for this purpose. l Launch a Clean Standards Initiative. During the Trump Administration, the U.S. government launched a worldwide Clean Networks program.25 As a result of this initiative, many of the U.S. government’s allies started the process of ending their relationships with Huawei. It is time for an Administration to build and expand on this groundbreaking work by taking a similar approach to the standard-setting process. Right now, the CCP is seeking to extend its influence by exerting control over the development of standards in a variety of areas, including technology and telecommunications. It is vital that the United States meet this threat with a comprehensive clean standards initiative. l Stop aiding the CCP’s authoritarian approach to artificial intelligence. The CCP has set itself a goal of becoming the global leader in artificial intelligence (AI) by 2030. Beijing is bent on using this technology to exert authoritarian control domestically and export its authoritarian governance model overseas. U.S. businesses are aiding Beijing in this effort— often unwittingly—by feeding, training, and improving the AI datasets of companies that are beholden to the CCP. One way that U.S. companies — 853 — Federal Communications Commission are doing this is by giving Beijing access to their high-powered cloud computing services. Therefore, it is time for an Administration to put in place a comprehensive plan that aims to stop U.S. entities from directly or indirectly contributing to China’s malign AI goals. Unleashing Economic Prosperity. The FCC needs to advance a pro-growth agenda that gives every American a fair shot at next-generation connectivity. This is vital for economic opportunity and prosperous communities. The current Administration has appropriated a lot of money for broadband infrastructure proj- ects, but it has failed to pair that spending with reforms that free more airwaves for wireless connectivity or streamline the permitting processes for broadband builds. That failure is holding back America’s hardworking telecommunications crews and leaving Americans stuck waiting on the wrong side of the digital divide. It is time for a return to the successful spectrum and infrastructure policies that prevailed during the Trump Administration—policies that enabled the U.S. to lead the world in 5G. l Refill America’s spectrum pipeline. From 2017 through 2020, the FCC took unprecedented steps to free the airwaves needed to power 5G and other next-generation wireless services. This work not only helped to secure America’s wireless leadership and bolster competition, but also enabled the private sector to create jobs and grow the economy. Recently, the FCC has failed to match the pace and cadence of those spectrum actions. Therefore, the FCC and a new Administration should work together to develop a national spectrum strategy that both identifies the specific airwaves that the FCC can free for commercial wireless services and sets an aggressive timeline for agency action. l Facilitate coordination on spectrum issues. Wireless services now play a central role in advancing America’s economic and national security interests. Over the past few years, this dynamic has led to an increasing number of headline-level disputes between the commercial wireless sector and federal agencies. These disputes are often framed in zero-sum terms as commercial wireless and federal agency stakeholders argue over the appropriate types and amount of airwaves that the government should allocate for various purposes. On the one hand, America’s global economic leadership depends on its ability to free spectrum that will power the U.S. commercial wireless industry. On the other hand, we must ensure that America’s national security and other federal agencies have access to the spectrum resources that they need to carry out their vital missions.

Department of the Treasury

Weak

Vector: 61%

Pages: 733-735AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The TRACKS Act increases reporting requirements for foreign subawards, which contrasts with Project 2025's goal to reduce information reporting burdens; however, both share a concern about monitoring funds to adversarial countries and protecting U.S. national interests, resulting in only weak thematic overlap."

Key themes:transparencyforeign spendingadversarial countriesfiscal accountabilitynational security

— 701 — Department of the Treasury administers these reporting programs, most of this expense is mandated by Con- gress, not the IRS. One of the primary reasons that Congress mandates ever-increasing infor- mation reporting is that the Treasury Department and the Joint Committee on Taxation staff almost always overestimate how much revenue will be gained from still more burdensome information reporting, and they do not estimate or report private compliance costs. Congress and the Treasury Department must undertake a serious review of the information reporting regime and reduce the burden on the public—especially small businesses. Small businesses suffer disproportionately from complexity and administrative burdens. Costs do not increase linearly with size, so elevated administrative costs have an adverse effect on the competitiveness of small firms. Budget. The operating budget of the IRS should be held constant in real terms. The resources allocated to the Office of the Taxpayer Advocate should be increased by at least 20 percent (about $44 million). The Office of Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion should be closed. Provided that IT management is changed; an effective, well-considered implementation plan is adopted; and serious oversight is put in place, additional resources dedicated solely to IT modernization may be warranted. INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS The Treasury Department should withdraw from Senate consideration the Protocol Amending the Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters.48 The protocol will lead to substantially more transnational identity theft, crime, industrial espionage, financial fraud, and suppression of political oppo- nents and religious or ethnic minorities by authoritarian and corrupt governments, including China, Colombia, Nigeria, and Russia. Unlike the original multilateral convention, the amended convention is open to all governments—including many that are either hostile to the United States, have serious corruption problems, or have inadequate privacy protections. The new Administration should also oppose the multilateral Competent Authority Agreement on Automatic Exchange of Financial Account Information.49 International organizations such as the OECD, the World Bank, and the Inter- national Monetary Fund espouse economic theories and policies that are inimical to American free market and limited government principles. The global elites who operate the IMF regularly advance higher taxes and big centralized government. The IMF has intervened in American policy debates—and has even recommended that the U.S. raise taxes. The IMF’s record of advancing global financial stability has been mixed at best. Its development assistance and lending programs in third- world countries have more often than not retarded growth rather than advancing it. The Treasury Department plays an important role in these international institutions and should force reforms and new policies. The U.S., however, should — 702 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise withdraw from both the World Bank and the IMF and terminate its financial con- tribution to both institutions. If the U.S. is to provide economic assistance or humanitarian aid to other nations, it should do so unilaterally—not through the pass-throughs of international aid orga- nizations, non-governmental organizations, or other nations. These organizations and countries simply create expensive middle-men, while U.S. funds are intercepted before being distributed to those in need. Also, these foreign entities have interests that do not coincide with American national security and economic interests. FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY Treasury should make balancing the federal budget a mission-critical objective. The federal budget absorbs enormous resources from the economy, both in money taken from taxpayers and in money borrowed. The budget should be balanced by driving down federal spending while maintaining a strong national defense and not raising taxes. To reduce interest payments on the debt, Treasury should lock in current rel- atively low interest rates by issuing longer duration bonds, and even consider creating a 50-year treasury bill. Most of the federal debt rolls over on average about every three to four years. But interest rates, even with the latest Federal Reserve rate increases, are still below the 5 percent historical average. Treasury would thus save taxpayers money during the next several decades by issuing fewer short-term notes that will probably have to be rolled over at higher rates in the future. To promote transparency of finances, each year Americans should receive a financial statement of the U.S. government alerting citizens of the revenues, expen- ditures, deficit, and debt for the preceding fiscal year. The statement should also include this individual family’s pro-rata share of the debt based on family size. INTERNATIONAL COMPETITIVENESS The Treasury must act more assertively in international financial institutions to protect and advance U.S. national interests—and oppose those that do not. It should employ a carrot-and-stick approach by increasing its activity and commitment to those financial institutions that are willing and able to adjust to this new approach and by zeroing out or potentially exiting those institutions that rely on U.S. capital while advancing agendas that run counter to U.S. interests. l A major emphasis of effecting this change must be the addition of a large new cadre of U.S. professionals and contractors at these international financial institutions. l The U.S. must insist on the hiring and support of this human capital as a condition to future funding.

Department of Housing and Urban Development

Weak

Vector: 61%

Pages: 548-550AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The TRACKS Act aims to increase transparency of federal spending to adversarial countries, which only tangentially relates to the HUD policy objective of preventing foreign nations like China from disrupting U.S. housing markets. It does not address housing supply, DEI/CRT/ESG reforms, regulatory delays, or Housing First policies central to the Project 2025 HUD section."

Key themes:foreign adversaries (China)transparency and accountabilityoversight of federal spendingmonitoring foreign influence

— 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.

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. Stefanik, Elise M.

Student Protection and University Accountability Act

119/hr/9203

Strengthening America’s Turning Point Act

119/hr/1550

Truman Scholarship Clean House Act

119/hr/7894

To track taxpayer dollars sent to adversarial countries and foreign entities of concern, and for other purposes.