District of Columbia Home Rule Improvement Act of 2025

Download PDF
Bill ID: 119/hr/5183
Last Updated: June 10, 2026

Sponsored by

Rep. Gosar, Paul A. [R-AZ-9]

ID: G000565

Follow the money

The bill

District of Columbia Home Rule Improvement Act of 2025

HR. 5183, 119th Congress — read as touching Private Prisons & Immigration Detention.

The sponsor

Rep. Gosar, Paul A. [R-AZ-9]

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

The money

$81,900 raised

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

The alignment

55% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Department of Housing and Urban Development" section, p. 548-550 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 396.

January 26, 2026

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

Another masterpiece of legislative theater, courtesy of the esteemed members of Congress. Let's dissect this "District of Columbia Home Rule Improvement Act of 2025" and see what's really going on beneath the surface.

**Diagnosis:** This bill is a classic case of "Regulatory Creep," where lawmakers attempt to incrementally expand federal control over the District of Columbia under the guise of "improvement." The symptoms are obvious: a longer congressional review period, expanded authority for resolutions of disapproval, and a plethora of new rules and procedures.

**New Regulations:** The bill establishes a uniform 60-day congressional review period for D.C. laws, which is a significant increase from the current 30-day period. This change will give Congress more time to meddle in local affairs, because, you know, they're just so good at it. Additionally, the bill clarifies expedited procedures for considering resolutions of disapproval, making it easier for lawmakers to veto D.C. laws and regulations.

**Affected Industries:** The main industry affected by this bill is, of course, the District of Columbia itself. But let's not forget the lobbying firms, special interest groups, and federal contractors who will benefit from the increased regulatory complexity. It's a win-win for everyone... except the taxpayers and residents of D.C.

**Compliance Requirements:** The bill introduces new compliance requirements for the D.C. government, including the need to transmit laws and regulations to Congress within a certain timeframe. Failure to comply will result in... well, we'll get to that later.

**Enforcement Mechanisms and Penalties:** Ah, the fun part! If the D.C. government fails to comply with these new regulations, Congress can disapprove their laws and regulations using resolutions of disapproval. And if they're really naughty, Congress might even impose penalties or withhold funding. Because nothing says "home rule" like being threatened by a bunch of self-serving politicians.

**Economic and Operational Impacts:** The economic impact of this bill will be negligible... for everyone except the lawyers, lobbyists, and consultants who will feast on the increased regulatory complexity. For the residents of D.C., it's just another example of federal overreach, stifling local innovation and autonomy. As for operational impacts, expect more bureaucratic red tape, delays, and inefficiencies.

**Prognosis:** This bill is a terminal case of "Regulatory Creep," and the only cure is to cut out the cancerous growth of federal control. But don't hold your breath; Congress will likely pass this monstrosity with flying colors, because who needs local autonomy when you have federal bureaucrats telling you what's best?

In conclusion, this bill is a masterclass in legislative doublespeak, designed to obscure its true intentions behind a veil of "improvement" and "clarification." But don't worry, folks; I've got my scalpel ready to dissect the real motivations behind this regulatory abomination.

Related Topics

Federal Budget & AppropriationsCongressional Rules & Procedures
Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Gosar, Paul A. [R-AZ-9]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions
$81,900
13 donors
PACs
$0
Organizations
$4,000
Committees
$0
Individuals
$77,900

No PAC contributions found

1
COLORADO RIVER INDIANS TRIBES
2 transactions
$3,000
2
MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
1 transaction
$1,000

No committee contributions found

1
SCHIRMER, SCOTT
4 transactions
$16,600
2
SMITH, RYAN
4 transactions
$16,600
3
TAPIA, DONALD
2 transactions
$10,000
4
PECK, JOHN
2 transactions
$6,600
5
HINMAN, ROY
2 transactions
$6,600
6
O'KEEFFE, WILLIAM
1 transaction
$5,000
7
BERGER, JOSHUA
1 transaction
$3,300
8
COOLEY, WILLIAM
1 transaction
$3,300
9
DUNN, TIMOTHY
1 transaction
$3,300
10
MORGAN, DAVID
1 transaction
$3,300
11
NORTON, ELIJAH
1 transaction
$3,300

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 3 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Rep. Comer, James [R-KY-1]

ID: C001108

Top Contributors

10

1
SHAMAN BOTANICALS
OrganizationKANSAS CITY, MO
$2,000
Apr 26, 2024
2
SCHWARZMAN, CHRISTINE
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualNEW YORK, NY
$6,600
Mar 31, 2023
3
SCHWARZMAN, STEPHEN
BLACKSTONE • CEO AND CHAIRMAN
IndividualNEW YORK, NY
$6,600
Mar 29, 2023
4
WALSH, KENNETH
SELF EMPLOYED • REAL ESTATE
IndividualRIVER VALE, NJ
$6,600
Mar 18, 2024
5
LAGANAS, ELIZA
THE LAW OFFICE OF STAHL, PC • LAWYER
IndividualMERRICK, NY
$6,600
Jun 28, 2023
6
SINGER, PAUL
ELLIOTT INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT • CO-CEO, CO-CIO, PRESIDENT
IndividualPALM BEACH, FL
$6,600
Apr 10, 2023
7
SCHWAB, CHARLES
CHARLES SCHWAB CORPORATION • CHAIRMAN
IndividualPALM BEACH, FL
$6,600
Jun 16, 2023
8
HILLERSON, ARLENE
SELF EMPLOYED • REAL ESTATE
IndividualPOTOMAC, MD
$6,600
Jun 26, 2024
9
SMITH, BRAD
MICROSOFT CORPORATION • ATTORNEY
IndividualBELLEVUE, WA
$6,600
Jun 25, 2024
10
HANCOCK, SAM
SELF EMPLOYED • BUSINESS OWNER
IndividualFULTON, KY
$6,600
Aug 4, 2023

Rep. Hageman, Harriet M. [R-WY-At Large]

ID: H001096

Top Contributors

10

1
COW CREEK BAND OF UMPQUA TRIBE OF INDIANS
OrganizationROSEBURG, OR
$5,000
Aug 6, 2024
2
PUYALLUP TRIBE OF INDIANS
OrganizationTACOMA, WA
$3,700
Mar 4, 2024
3
CHEROKEE NATION
OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK
$3,300
Dec 22, 2023
4
PECHANGA BAND OF INDIANS
OrganizationTEMECULA, CA
$3,300
Dec 22, 2023
5
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN
$3,300
Nov 6, 2023
6
SHINGLE SPRINGS BAND MIWOK INDIANS
OrganizationSHINGLE SPRINGS, CA
$3,300
Dec 22, 2023
7
MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationBANNING, CA
$3,300
Mar 29, 2024
8
HPUL PROJECT OPERATIONS
OrganizationUPPER LAKE, CA
$3,300
Sep 6, 2024
9
MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE
OrganizationAUBURN, WA
$3,300
Sep 6, 2024
10
AK-CHIN INDIAN COMMUNITY OPERATIONS ACCOUNT
OrganizationMARICOPA, AZ
$3,300
Sep 13, 2024

Rep. Higgins, Clay [R-LA-3]

ID: H001077

Top Contributors

10

1
HEBERT, MARC
JONES WALKER • ATTORNEY
IndividualMETAIRIE, LA
$3,500
Sep 8, 2024
2
HAMER, GREGORY J MR. SR
B&G FOOD ENTERPRISES LLC. • CORP. SECRETARY
IndividualMORGAN CITY, LA
$3,300
Nov 25, 2024
3
FREY, GERARD A.
SELF EMPLOYED • FARMERS
IndividualIOTA, LA
$3,300
Nov 5, 2024
4
CRAPPEL, ADAM
AE OFFICE MACHINES • PRESIDENT
IndividualPATTERSON, LA
$3,300
Mar 31, 2023
5
UIHLEIN, RICHARD
ULINE • CEO
IndividualLAKE BLUFF, IL
$3,300
Jan 26, 2023
6
BOLLINGER, DONALD
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualNEW ORLEANS, LA
$3,300
Mar 7, 2023
7
BOLLINGER, DONALD
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualNEW ORLEANS, LA
$3,300
Mar 7, 2023
8
COOLEY, WILLIAM
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualWEST PALM BEACH, FL
$3,300
Mar 7, 2023
9
HAMER, GREGORY J MR. SR
BG FOOD ENTERPRISES LLC • EXECUTIVE
IndividualMORGAN CITY, LA
$3,300
Mar 12, 2024
10
DAVIS, JORDAN
WESTERN CONSTRUCTION ROOFING • SALES PROJECT MANAGER
IndividualHARRISON, ID
$3,300
Jan 9, 2024

Donor Network - Rep. Gosar, Paul A. [R-AZ-9]

PACs
Organizations
Individuals
Politicians

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

Loading...

Showing 51 nodes and 32 connections (53 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $119,200

Top Donors - Rep. Gosar, Paul A. [R-AZ-9]

Showing top 13 donors by contribution amount

2 Orgs11 Individuals

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 5 harmed.

  • Section 7 prohibits transmission of acts substantially the same as disapproved acts, which could limit private prison operators' ability to influence District of Columbia laws and regulations.

  • Section 7's prohibition on transmitting similar acts may restrict law enforcement and surveillance technology vendors' capacity to shape District of Columbia policies.

  • −Labor Unionsconfidence 0.60

    The bill's emphasis on congressional review and potential disapproval of District of Columbia laws could undermine labor unions' interests in the region, particularly if laws favorable to unions are disapproved.

  • The increased congressional oversight and potential for disapproval of District of Columbia health-related laws could impact hospitals and health systems, potentially limiting their ability to advocate for favorable policies.

  • −Health Insuranceconfidence 0.50

    Health insurance providers may also be affected by the bill's provisions, as changes in District of Columbia laws could influence their operations and profitability in the region.

Project 2025 Policy Matches

This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.AI-enhanced analysis provides detailed alignment ratings.

Department of Housing and Urban Development

Weak
Vector: 61%
Pages: 548-550AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill addresses congressional review procedures for District of Columbia laws, whereas the Project 2025 HUD section focuses on housing market reforms, DEI/CRT/ESG concerns, and reducing regulatory delays in housing construction. There is only a tangential connection through general themes of oversight and administrative process."

Key themes:congressional oversightadministrative processregulatory review

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

Financial Regulatory Agencies

Weak
Vector: 60%
Pages: 875-878AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill concerns congressional review of District of Columbia laws, while the Project 2025 financial regulatory section focuses on agencies like the CFPB and FCC; both involve oversight mechanisms but address different policy domains."

Key themes:congressional oversightregulatory accountabilitylegislative review

— 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

Department of Housing and Urban Development

Weak
Vector: 60%
Pages: 548-550AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill concerns congressional review procedures for District of Columbia laws, while the Project 2025 HUD section focuses on housing market reforms, foreign influence, DEI/CRT/ESG policies, and reducing regulatory delays in housing development. There is only a tangential connection through the theme of streamlining regulatory oversight, but no substantive overlap in housing‑specific objectives."

Key themes:regulatory reformcongressional oversightadministrative efficiency

— 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.

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.

Full Policy Text

Related Bills