Unfunded Mandates Accountability and Transparency Act of 2025

Download PDF
Bill ID: 119/hr/580
Last Updated: September 7, 2026

Sponsored by

Rep. Foxx, Virginia [R-NC-5]

ID: F000450

Follow the money

The bill

Unfunded Mandates Accountability and Transparency Act of 2025

HR. 580, 119th Congress — read as touching Private Equity & Hedge Funds.

The sponsor

Rep. Foxx, Virginia [R-NC-5]

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

The money

$81,150 raised

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

The alignment

70% 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. 381.

January 12, 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

(sigh) Oh joy, another exercise in futility. Let's dissect this trainwreck of a bill.

HR 580, the "Unfunded Mandates Accountability and Transparency Act of 2025". What a mouthful of Orwellian doublespeak. This bill is like a patient with a bad case of bureaucratic flatulence – it sounds impressive, but it's just hot air.

**Total funding amounts and budget allocations:** None. Zilch. Zero. This bill doesn't actually allocate any funds; it just pretends to care about transparency and accountability while doing nothing to address the real issues.

**Key programs and agencies receiving funds:** Ha! There are no funds to receive. This is a hollow shell of a bill, designed to make politicians look good without actually accomplishing anything.

**Notable increases or decreases from previous years:** Since there's no actual funding involved, let's just say this bill is a net decrease in common sense and a significant increase in bureaucratic nonsense.

**Riders or policy provisions attached to funding:** Ah, now we get to the meat of it. This bill is actually an attempt to gut the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 by adding more loopholes and exemptions for regulatory agencies. It's like trying to treat a patient with a broken leg by giving them a Band-Aid and calling it a day.

**Fiscal impact and deficit implications:** Since this bill doesn't actually allocate any funds, the fiscal impact is zero. But let's not be fooled – this bill is just a Trojan horse for future regulatory overreach and unfunded mandates that will inevitably increase the deficit and burden taxpayers.

In conclusion, HR 580 is a classic case of legislative theater, designed to distract from the real issues while politicians pat themselves on the back for "doing something". It's like treating a patient with a terminal illness by prescribing them a placebo – it might make them feel better in the short term, but ultimately, it's just a waste of time and resources.

Diagnosis: Legislative malpractice. Prognosis: More of the same bureaucratic nonsense and fiscal irresponsibility that got us into this mess in the first place.

Related Topics

Federal Budget & AppropriationsHealthcare & Insurance Reform
Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Foxx, Virginia [R-NC-5]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions
$81,150
25 donors
PACs
$0
Organizations
$13,450
Committees
$0
Individuals
$67,700

No PAC contributions found

1
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
2 transactions
$4,950
2
MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
2 transactions
$3,000
3
EASTERN BAND OF CHEROKEE INDIANS
1 transaction
$2,000
4
SANTA YNEZ BAND OF CHUMASH INDIANS
1 transaction
$2,000
5
CATAWBA NATION TRIBE
1 transaction
$1,500

No committee contributions found

1
MOORE, JOHN T. MR.
1 transaction
$5,000
2
BARKER, PATRICIA M. MRS.
1 transaction
$3,300
3
DRESCHER, STEPHANIE MS.
1 transaction
$3,300
4
EDSON, CHRISTOPHER L. MR.
1 transaction
$3,300
5
KELLY, MARTIN MR.
1 transaction
$3,300
6
KLEINMAN, SCOTT M. MR.
1 transaction
$3,300
7
LAUDER, RONALD S. MR.
1 transaction
$3,300
8
LEAS, BRET E. MR.
1 transaction
$3,300
9
MORONEY, JOSEPH A. MR.
1 transaction
$3,300
10
NIEHAUS, ROBERT H. MR.
1 transaction
$3,300
11
NORD, MATTHEW H. MR.
1 transaction
$3,300
12
POND, STEPHEN KNIGHT MR.
1 transaction
$3,300
13
REISS, MICHAEL MR.
1 transaction
$3,300
14
SABIN, ANDREW E. MR.
1 transaction
$3,300
15
SAMBUR, DAVID B. MR.
1 transaction
$3,300
16
SOUTH, REBECCA G. MRS.
1 transaction
$3,300
17
THOMPSON, DONALD O. MR. JR
1 transaction
$3,300
18
VIELEHR, BYRON C. MR.
1 transaction
$3,300
19
WANEK, JOYCE A. MS.
1 transaction
$3,300
20
WANEK, KAREN A. MRS.
1 transaction
$3,300

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 4 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Rep. Cuellar, Henry [D-TX-28]

ID: C001063

Top Contributors

25

1
TIGUA INDIAN RESERVATION
OrganizationEL PASO, TX
$3,000
Dec 31, 2023
2
THE CHICKASAW NATION
OrganizationADA, OK
$2,500
Jun 30, 2023
3
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN
$1,650
Jun 22, 2023
4
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN
$1,650
Apr 30, 2024
5
ALABAMA-COUSHATTA TRIBE
OrganizationLIVINGSTON, TX
$1,000
Sep 27, 2024
6
GARIBAY, RUBEN
SELECT DEDICATED SOLUTIONS • MEMBER
IndividualSAN ANTONIO, TX
$6,600
Dec 28, 2023
7
GARIBAY, SOPHIA S.
SELECT DEDICATED SOLUTIONS • DIRECTOR
IndividualSAN ANTONIO, TX
$6,600
Dec 28, 2023
8
GARIBAY, RUBEN JR
SELECT DEDICATED SOLUTIONS • MEMBER
IndividualQUEMADO, TX
$3,300
Oct 25, 2024
9
GASTELUM, JUAN C.
GREEN CORRIDORS LLC • SVP LAND PORTS OF ENTRY
IndividualLAKEWAY, TX
$3,300
Oct 24, 2024
10
JAVED, MUHAMMAD T.
RICELAND HEALTHCARE • CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
IndividualBEAUMONT, TX
$3,300
Oct 29, 2024

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

ID: G000592

Top Contributors

29

1
PENOBSCOT INDIAN NATION
OrganizationINDIAN ISLAND, ME
$3,300
Oct 19, 2024
2
EASTERN BAND OF CHEROKEE INDIANS
OrganizationCHEROKEE, NC
$3,300
Feb 8, 2024
3
FEDERATED INDIANS OF GRATON RANCHERIA
OrganizationROHNERT PARK, CA
$3,300
Mar 13, 2024
4
SAN MANUEL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationLOS ANGELES, CA
$3,300
Sep 28, 2023
5
NOTTAWASEPPI HURON BAND OF THE POTAWATOMI
OrganizationFULTON, MI
$2,000
Oct 15, 2024
6
PASSAMAQUODDY TRIBE AT INDIAN TOWNSHIP
OrganizationPERRY, ME
$1,000
Oct 28, 2024
7
SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationSANTA YNEZ, CA
$1,000
Oct 31, 2024
8
MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationBANNING, CA
$1,000
Jun 27, 2024
9
ONEIDA NATION
OrganizationONEIDA, WI
$1,000
Sep 26, 2024
10
KIRK, GARRETT JR
SELF EMPLOYED • INVESTOR
IndividualNEW YORK, NY
$6,600
Nov 2, 2024

Rep. Hinson, Ashley [R-IA-2]

ID: H001091

Top Contributors

0

No contribution data available

Rep. Sessions, Pete [R-TX-17]

ID: S000250

Top Contributors

25

1
POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS
OrganizationATMORE, AL
$5,000
May 16, 2024
2
POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS
OrganizationATMORE, AL
$5,000
Sep 12, 2023
3
POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS
OrganizationATMORE, AL
$3,300
Jun 17, 2024
4
POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS
OrganizationATMORE, AL
$3,300
May 24, 2023
5
ALABAMA-COUSHATTA TRIBE
OrganizationLIVINGSTON, TX
$1,000
Sep 30, 2024
6
HOWARD, RONALD VANCE
BANKERS LIFE • MANAGEMENT
IndividualHUNTSVILLE, TX
$5,000
Mar 13, 2023
7
HOWARD, KAREN
ELEMENTS MASSAGE • MANAGEMENT
IndividualHUNTSVILLE, TX
$5,000
Mar 13, 2023
8
SINGH, PRITPAL
BETA SOFT SYSTEMS • MANAGEMENT
IndividualFREMONT, CA
$5,000
Jun 23, 2023
9
KAUR, MANJIT
SINGH SEMICONDUCTORS & SYSTEMS • MANAGEMENT
IndividualFREMONT, CA
$5,000
Jun 23, 2023
10
BEHRINGER, TODD
THE BEHRINGER GROUP, LLC • CONSTRUCTION
IndividualWOODWAY, TX
$3,400
Sep 1, 2023

Donor Network - Rep. Foxx, Virginia [R-NC-5]

PACs
Organizations
Individuals
Politicians

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

Loading...

Showing 38 nodes and 41 connections

Total contributions: $41

Top Donors - Rep. Foxx, Virginia [R-NC-5]

Showing top 25 donors by contribution amount

5 Orgs20 Individuals

Industry Impact

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

  • Section 202(b) requires regulatory impact analyses for major rules, which may increase costs and burdens for private equity firms and hedge funds, as they will need to comply with additional regulations and provide more detailed information about their investments.

  • −Commercial Banksconfidence 0.70

    Section 202(c)(1)(B) requires agencies to consider alternative regulatory approaches, including those that use incentives and market-based means, which may lead to increased regulatory burdens on commercial banks.

  • Section 205 requires agencies to maximize net benefits when promulgating major rules, which may lead to increased regulatory costs for insurance companies, as they will need to comply with more stringent regulations.

  • −Big Tech Platformsconfidence 0.50

    Section 208 requires the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs to provide guidance and oversight on regulatory impact analyses, which may lead to increased regulatory scrutiny of big tech platforms and potential increases in compliance costs.

  • −Telecommunicationsconfidence 0.50

    Section 209 requires agencies to establish electronic dockets for rulemaking, which may increase transparency and regulatory burdens on telecommunications companies, as they will need to provide more detailed information about their operations.

Who funds the sponsor on these industries

For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Rep. Foxx, Virginia [R-NC-5])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

  • from 26 contributions
    • KLEINMAN, SCOTT M. MR.$6,600
    • ZELTER, JAMES C. MR.$6,600
    • ROWAN, MARC J. MR.$6,600
    • SINGER, PAUL E. MR.$6,600
    • MORONEY, JOSEPH A. MR.$5,300
  • from 4 contributions
    • LITTLE, JAMES M. MR.$1,000
    • OBIN, ANDREW MR.$817
    • PAWLYK, SHELLEY H. MS.$500
    • KUSHNER, MARAT MR.$250
  • from 7 contributions
    • ROWLEY, JEFFERSON H. MR.$1,100
    • LEATHERMAN, JOHN F. MR.$650

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

Moderate
Vector: 66%
Pages: 548-550AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill’s focus on requiring regulatory impact analyses for major rules aligns with Project 2025’s HUD goal of streamlining regulations that add unnecessary delay and costs to housing development, though the bill is agency‑wide and does not address HUD‑specific issues like DEI/CRT or foreign market interference."

Key themes:regulatory reformcost-benefit analysistransparency and accountabilityreducing regulatory burdenstreamlining rulemaking

— 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

Moderate
Vector: 66%
Pages: 872-874AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill's focus on requiring regulatory impact analyses for major rules promotes transparency and accountability in federal rulemaking, which aligns with Project 2025's emphasis on reforming financial regulatory agencies through greater oversight, disclosure, and cost-benefit considerations. However, the bill is broad and not specific to financial agencies, resulting in only moderate thematic overlap."

Key themes:regulatory transparencycost-benefit analysisaccountability in rulemakingfederal agency oversight

— 840 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise ENDNOTES 1. H.R. 5480, Securities Act of 1933, Public Law No. 73-22, 73rd Congress, May 27, 1933, https://govtrackus. s3.amazonaws.com/legislink/pdf/stat/48/STATUTE-48-Pg74.pdf (accessed February 20, 2023). 2. H.R. 9323, Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Public Law No. 73-291, 73rd Congress, June 6, 1934, https:// govtrackus.s3.amazonaws.com/legislink/pdf/stat/48/STATUTE-48-Pg881a.pdf (accessed February 20, 2023). 3. Mark T. Uyeda, Commissioner, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, “Remarks at the 2022 Cato Summit on Financial Regulation,” November 17, 2022, https://www.sec.gov/news/speech/uyeda-remarks- cato-summit-financial-regulation-111722 (accessed February 20, 2023); Hester M. Peirce, Commissioner, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, “It’s Not Just Scope 3: Remarks at the American Enterprise Institute,” December 7, 2022, https://www.sec.gov/news/speech/peirce-remarks-american-enterprise-institute-120722 (accessed February 20, 2023); comment letter from David R. Burton to Vanessa A. Countryman, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, “Re: The Enhancement and Standardization of Climate-Related Disclosures for Investors [File No. S7-10-2; Release No. 33-11042; RIN 3235-AM87],” June 17, 2022, https://www. sec.gov/comments/s7-10-22/s71022-20131980-302443.pdf (accessed February 20, 2023). 4. Size would probably be measured best by public float or the number of beneficial owners. 5. See David R. Burton, “Securities Disclosure Reform,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 3178, February 13, 2017, https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/2017-02/BG3178.pdf; David R. Burton, “Offering and Disclosure Reform,” Chapter 11 in Reframing Financial Regulation: Enhancing Stability and Protecting Consumers, ed. Hester Peirce and Benjamin Klutsey (Arlington, VA: Mercatus Center at George Mason University, 2016), pp. 277–315, https://www.mercatus.org/research/books/reframing-financial-regulation (accessed February 20, 2023); Andrew N. Vollmer, “Investor-Friendly Securities Reform to Increase Economic Growth,” Securities Regulation & Law Report, Bloomberg BNA, Vol. 49, June 5, 2017. 6. See, for example, David R. Burton, “Reforming the Securities and Exchange Commission,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 3378, January 30, 2019, https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/2019-01/ BG3378.pdf; Andrew N. Vollmer, “Testimony on Workforce Management Disclosures and Other SEC Issues,” submitted to the Subcommittee on Investor Protection, Entrepreneurship, and Capital Markets, Committee on Financial Services, U.S. House of Representatives, December 6, 2022, https://www.congress.gov/117/ meeting/house/115227/witnesses/HHRG-117-BA16-Wstate-VollmerA-20221208.pdf (accessed February 20, 2023); David R. Burton, “Reforming FINRA,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 3181, February 1, 2017, https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/2017-02/BG3181.pdf; Hester Peirce, “The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority: Not Self-Regulation After All,” Mercatus Center at George Mason University Working Paper, January 2015, https://www.mercatus.org/research/working-papers/financial-industry-regulatory- authority-not-self-regulation-after-all (accessed February 20, 2023); Thaya Brook Knight, “Transparency and Accountability at the SEC and at FINRA,” Chapter 11 in Prosperity Unleashed: Smarter Financial Regulation, ed. Norbert J. Michel, (Washington: The Heritage Foundation, 2017) https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/ files/2017-02/11_ProsperityUnleashed_Chapter11.pdf. 7. Reorganization Plan No. 10 of 1950, U.S. Code Title 5—Appendix, Reorganization Plans, http://uscode.house. gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title5a-node84-leaf114&num=0&edition=prelim (accessed February 20, 2023). 8. The board or commission should evaluate the regulatory functions of the National Securities Exchanges, Registered Securities Future Product Exchanges, Registered Clearing Agencies (such as the Depository Trust Company (DTC), the National Securities Clearing Corporation (NSCC) and the Options Clearing Corporation (OCC)), the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (MSRB) and the National Futures Association (NFA). This board or commission should have a broad composition and permit minority reports. 9. Boyden Gray & Associates, Comments Submitted on Behalf of Alliance for Fair Board Recruitment Concerning the Nasdaq Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change to Adopt Listing Rules Related to Board Diversity, Amendment No. 1, File No. SR-NASDAQ-2020-081, April 6, 2021 https://www.sec.gov/ comments/sr-nasdaq-2020-081/srnasdaq2020081-8639478-230941.pdf (accessed February 20, 2023); David R. Burton, “Nasdaq’s Proposed Board-Diversity Rule Is Immoral and Has No Basis in Economics,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 3591, March 9, 2021, https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/ files/2021-03/BG3591_0.pdf. The SEC is contemplating at least two rules that can be expected to require differential treatment based on race, sex, ethnicity, and so on. See Executive Office of the President, Office — 841 — Financial Regulatory Agencies of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, “Fall 2022 Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions: Active Regulatory Actions Listed by Agency,” https://www.reginfo.gov/ public/do/eAgendaMain (accessed February 20, 2023); “Human Capital Management Disclosure,” RIN: 3235- AM88, https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=202204&RIN=3235-AM88 (accessed February 20, 2023); “Corporate Board Diversity,” RIN: 3235-AL91, https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/ eAgendaViewRule?pubId=202204&RIN=3235-AL91 (accessed February 20, 2023). 10. 15 U.S. Code § 77z–3, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/77z-3 (accessed February 20, 2023); 15 U.S. Code § 78mm, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/78mm (accessed February 20, 2023). 11. S. ___, Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act of 2022, discussion draft, 117th Congress, 2nd Session, https:// www.banking.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/the_jobs_act_4.0discussiondraft.pdf (accessed February 20, 2023); David R. Burton, “Entrepreneurial Capital Formation,” Testimony before the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, U.S. Senate, April 5, 2022, https://www.heritage.org/testimony/entrepreneurial- capital-formation; “Removing Barriers to Small Business Capital Formation and Expanding Investor Opportunities,” Section 6 in Nicholas Anthony, Norbert J. Michel, Jennifer J. Schulp, George Selgin, and Jack Solowey, “Sound Financial Policy: Principled Recommendations for the 118th Congress,” ed. Norbert J. Michel and Ann Rulon, Cato Institute, 2022, pp. 22–27, https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/2022-10/sound- financial-policy-118th-congress.pdf (accessed February 20, 2023); David R. Burton and Norbert J. Michel, Proposals to Foster Economic Growth and Capital Formation, Submission to Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, U.S. Senate, March 18, 2021, https://www.banking.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/David%20 Burton%20and%20Norbert%20Michel%20-%202021-3-18.pdf (accessed February 20, 2023); David R. Burton, “Improving Entrepreneurs’ Access to Capital: Vital for Economic Growth,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 3182, February 14, 2017, https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/2017-02/BG3182.pdf. 12. The small issues exemptive authority has been in the Securities Act since its initial enactment. 13. The crowdfunding exemption was created by Title III of the 2012 JOBS Act. See H.R. 3606, Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act, Public Law No. 112-106, 112th Congress, April 5, 2021, Title III, § 302, https://www. govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-112publ106/pdf/PLAW-112publ106.pdf (accessed February 20, 2023). 14. Burton, “Improving Entrepreneurs’ Access to Capital: Vital for Economic Growth”; Rutheford B. Campbell Jr., “The Case for Federal Pre-Emption of State Blue Sky Laws,” Chapter 6 in Prosperity Unleashed: Smarter Financial Regulation, https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/2017-02/06_ProsperityUnleashed_ Chapter06.pdf. 15. Andrew N. Vollmer, “Abandon the Concept of Accredited Investors in Private Securities Offerings,” Securities Regulation Law Journal, Vol. 49, No. 5 (Spring 2021), https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_ id=3719280 (accessed February 20, 2023); Thaya Brook Knight, “Your Money’s No Good Here: How Restrictions on Private Securities Offerings Harm Investors,” Cato Institute Policy Analysis No. 833, February 9, 2018, https:// www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa833.pdf (accessed February 20, 2023); David R. Burton, “Congress Should Increase Access to Private Securities Offerings,” Heritage Foundation Issue Brief No. 4899, August 29, 2018, https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/2018-08/IB4899.pdf; Andrew N. Vollmer, “Evidence on the Use of Disclosure Documents in Private Securities Offerings to Accredited Investors,” Mercatus Center at George Mason University Working Paper, October 22, 2020, https://www.mercatus.org/publications/financial-regulation/ evidence-use-disclosure-documents-private-securities-offerings-0 (accessed February 20, 2023). 16. For a detailed discussion, see “Micro-Offerings,” Section IId in Burton and Michel, Proposals to Foster Economic Growth and Capital Formation, pp. 15–17. 17. David R. Burton, “Let Entrepreneurs Raise Capital Using Finders and Private Placement Brokers,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 3328, July 10, 2018, https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/2018-07/ BG3328.pdf; Andrew N. Vollmer, “Make It Easy for Startups to Sell Stock,” Mercatus Center at George Mason University Discourse, September 21, 2020, https://www.mercatus.org/bridge/commentary/make-it-easy- startups-sell-stock (accessed February 20, 2023). 18. See H.R. 531, S-Corp Access to Crowdfunding Act, 115th Congress, introduced January 13, 2017, https://www. govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-115hr531ih/pdf/BILLS-115hr531ih.pdf (accessed February 20, 2023); David Burton, “The Tax Law Makes It Almost Impossible for ‘S Corporations’ to Use Equity Crowdfunding,” The Daily Signal, April 19, 2016, https://www.dailysignal.com/2016/04/19/the-tax-law-makes-it-almost-impossible-for- s-corporations-to-use-equity-crowdfunding/.

Department of Health and Human Services

Weak
Vector: 66%
Pages: 533-535AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on regulatory transparency and impact analysis for major federal rules, while the Project 2025 HHS section emphasizes Medicaid reform, managed care oversight, price transparency in healthcare, and consumer protection in health markets. There is no direct connection to healthcare-specific policies or HHS programs in the bill."

Key themes:transparencyaccountabilityregulatory oversight

— 500 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 32. Owcharenko Schaefer, “Medicaid at 55: Understanding the Design, Trends, and Reforms Needed to Improve the Health Care Safety Net.” 33. Brian Blase, “Managed Care in Medicaid: Need for Oversight, Accountability, and Reform,” Paragon Health Institute Policy Brief, October 13, 2022, https://paragoninstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/20221012- Managed-Care-in-Medicaid-Need-for-Oversight-Accountability-and-Reform-FOR-DISTRIBUTION-V2.pdf (accessed February 13, 2023). 34. Owcharenko Schaefer, “Medicaid at 55: Understanding the Design, Trends, and Reforms Needed to Improve the Health Care Safety Net.” 35. 42 U.S. Code § 1315, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1315 (accessed March 17, 2023). 36. Chad D. Savage and Lee S. Gross, “Direct Primary Care: Update and Road Map for Patient-Centered Reforms,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 3635, June 28, 2021, https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/ files/2021-06/BG3635.pdf. 37. H.R. 133, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, Public Law No. 116-260, 116th Congress, December 27, 2020, Division BB, Title I, https://www.congress.gov/116/plaws/publ260/PLAW-116publ260.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 38. Doug Badger, “On Surprise Medical Bills, Congress Should Side with Consumers, Not Special Interests,” Heritage Foundation Commentary, January 31, 2020, https://www.heritage.org/health-care-reform/ commentary/surprise-medical-bills-congress-should-side-consumers-not-special. 39. Edmund F. Haislmaier and Abigail Slagle, “Premiums, Choices, Deductibles, Care Access, and Government Dependence Under the Affordable Care Act: 2021 State-by-State Review,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 3668, November 2, 2021, https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/2021-11/BG3668.pdf. 40. U.S. Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service; U.S. Department of Labor, Employee Benefits Security Administration; and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, “Transparency in Coverage,” Final Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 85, No. 219 (November 12, 2020), pp. 72158–72310, https://www.govinfo.gov/ content/pkg/FR-2020-11-12/pdf/2020-24591.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 41. David N. Bernstein and Robert E. Moffit, “New Price Transparency Rule Will Help Transform America’s Health Care System,” Heritage Foundation Commentary, November 1, 2020, https://www.heritage.org/health-care- reform/commentary/new-price-transparency-rule-will-help-transform-americas-health-care. 42. Sluzala and Haislmaier, “Lessons from COVID-19: How Policymakers Should Reform the Regulation of Clinical Testing.” 43. Ibid. 44. Most recently enacted in H.R. 2471, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022, Public Law No. 117-103, 117th Congress, March 15, 2022, Division H, Title V, §§ 506–507, https://www.congress.gov/117/plaws/publ103/ PLAW-117publ103.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 45. President Joseph R. Biden Jr., Executive Order 14079, “Securing Access to Reproductive and Other Healthcare Services,” August 3, 2022, in Federal Register, Vol. 87, No. 154 (August 11, 2022), pp. 49505–49507, https:// www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2022-08-11/pdf/2022-17420.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 46. Planned Parenthood, 2020–2021 Annual Report, p. 27, https://www.plannedparenthood.org/uploads/ filer_public/40/8f/408fc2ad-c8c2-48da-ad87-be5cc257d370/211214-ppfa-annualreport-20-21-c3-digital.pdf (accessed March 22, 2023). 47. Ibid., pp. 30 and 31. Total revenue of $1,714.4 million (p. 30) minus $1,580.7 million in total expenses (p. 31) yields $133,7 million. 48. Ibid., p. 28. 49. Ibid., p. 30. 50. H.R. 372, Protecting Life and Taxpayers Act of 2023, 118th Congress, introduced January 17, 2023, https://www. congress.gov/118/bills/hr372/BILLS-118hr372ih.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 51. 42 U.S. Code § 18023, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/18023 (accessed March 17, 2023). 52. H.R. 3128, Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985, Public Law No. 99-272, 99th Congress, April 7, 1986, Title IX, Subtitle A, Part 1, Subpart B, § 9121, https://www.congress.gov/99/statute/STATUTE-100/ STATUTE-100-Pg82.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 53. H.R. 8070, Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Public Law No. 93-112, 93rd Congress, September 26, 1973, https://www. congress.gov/93/statute/STATUTE-87/STATUTE-87-Pg355.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023).

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