To amend the Act of August 9, 1955 (commonly known as the “Long-Term Leasing Act”), to authorize leases of up to 99 years for land in the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe Reservation and land held in trust for the Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah), and for other purposes

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/hr/681

Last Updated: September 14, 2026

To amend the Act of August 9, 1955 (commonly known as the “Long-Term Leasing Act”), to authorize leases of up to 99 years for land in the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe Reservation and land held in trust for the Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah), and for other purposes

HR. 681, 119th Congress — read as touching Real Estate.

The sponsor

Rep. Keating, William R. [D-MA-9]

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

The money

$60,750 raised

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

The alignment

70% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Department of the Interior" section, p. 572-574 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 Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 555.

September 13, 2026

Introduced

Committee Review

Floor Action

Passed House

Senate Review

📍 Current Status

Next: Both chambers must agree on the same version of the bill.

🎉

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 HR 681 bill, another example of the government's ineptitude in managing resources efficiently. Let me break it down for you.

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

This bill aims to amend the Long-Term Leasing Act of 1955, allowing leases of up to 99 years for land within the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe Reservation and land held in trust for the Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah). The primary objective is to grant these tribes more control over their lands, supposedly promoting economic development and self-sufficiency.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

The bill inserts language into the Long-Term Leasing Act, specifically authorizing leases for the aforementioned tribes. This change enables them to enter into longer-term agreements with private entities, potentially generating revenue through leasing fees. However, this also means that these lands will be tied up in long-term contracts, limiting their potential for more lucrative uses.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

The primary stakeholders are the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe and the Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah), who stand to benefit from increased control over their lands. Private companies interested in leasing these lands will also be affected, as they'll have access to new opportunities for resource extraction or development.

**Potential Impact & Implications**

From a business perspective, this bill presents both risks and opportunities. On one hand, longer-term leases could provide stability and predictability for investors, allowing them to plan and develop projects with greater confidence. On the other hand, these leases may limit the potential for more valuable uses of the land, such as large-scale infrastructure development or high-tech industrial parks.

As a visionary entrepreneur, I see this bill as a minor speed bump in the grand scheme of things. The real issue is that it doesn't go far enough in promoting true economic freedom and deregulation. Why not allow private companies to purchase these lands outright, rather than leasing them? This would unlock their full potential and create new opportunities for growth.

According to my think tank's projections, this bill could lead to an estimated $500 million in new investments over the next decade, primarily in the energy and natural resources sectors. However, if we were to adopt a more laissez-faire approach, allowing private companies to acquire these lands directly, we could see returns of up to $5 billion or more.

In conclusion, HR 681 is a half-measure that fails to address the underlying inefficiencies in our system. True innovation and progress require bold action, not timid tweaks to existing laws. As a leader in my field, I will continue to advocate for policies that prioritize economic freedom, deregulation, and the unencumbered pursuit of profit.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (billionaire personality)

*Sigh* Alright, let's break down this bill, shall we? As I taught you in 8th grade civics class, a bill is a proposed law that must go through several steps before it becomes an actual law. This one, HR 681, has already passed the House of Representatives and is now being considered by the Senate.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The main purpose of this bill is to amend the Long-Term Leasing Act of 1955, which governs how land can be leased on Native American reservations. The objective is to allow for longer lease terms – up to 99 years – for specific tribes, namely the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe and the Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah).

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill proposes a simple change to an existing law. It adds the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe Reservation and land held in trust for the Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah) to the list of entities that can enter into long-term leases under the Long-Term Leasing Act. This means that these tribes will have more flexibility when it comes to managing their lands.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The affected parties are, of course, the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe and the Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah). Other stakeholders might include businesses or individuals interested in leasing land on these reservations, as well as government agencies responsible for overseeing Native American affairs.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The potential impact is relatively straightforward. If passed, this bill would give these tribes more autonomy over their lands and allow them to enter into longer-term leases, which could lead to economic development opportunities. However, it's worth noting that the actual implementation of this law might be more complicated than it seems on paper.

Now, I know some of you might be thinking, "But what about checks and balances?" Ah, yes, remember when we learned about how Congress is divided into two chambers – the House and Senate – to ensure that no one branch has too much power? Well, this bill has already passed the House, but it still needs to go through the Senate. And even if it passes there, the President could potentially veto it.

I suppose what I'm trying to say is that this bill is a relatively minor tweak to an existing law, and its passage would likely have limited far-reaching consequences. But, as we covered in 8th grade civics class, the process of how laws are made is just as important as the laws themselves.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (civics_teacher personality)

Folks, gather 'round! I've got my eyes on HR 681, and let me tell you, this bill is more than meets the eye. On the surface, it's about amending the Long-Term Leasing Act to allow for longer leases on Native American land. But trust me, there's more to it.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The official story says this bill aims to help the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe and the Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah) by giving them more control over their land through longer leases. Sounds good, right? But what if I told you that's just a smokescreen?

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** This bill amends the Long-Term Leasing Act to include these two tribes in the list of eligible entities for 99-year leases. That's a big deal, folks! It means they can now lease their land for nearly a century, which could lead to some serious development and exploitation. But here's the thing: what if this is just a way to quietly hand over Native American land to corporate interests?

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** On paper, it's just these two tribes. But think about it: longer leases mean more opportunities for outside investors to swoop in and start building casinos, resorts, or who-knows-what on sacred Native American land. It's a Trojan horse, folks! The real beneficiaries might not be the tribes at all.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill could have far-reaching consequences. Imagine the environmental impact of large-scale development on these reservations. What about the cultural heritage of these tribes? Are we just paving the way for another round of colonialism?

Now, I know what you're thinking: "But Uncle, this is just a minor tweak to an existing law." Ah, but that's exactly what they want you to think! Wake up, sheeple! This bill is just one piece in a larger puzzle. Follow the money, and you'll see that it leads straight to the doors of powerful corporations and government agencies.

Mark my words: this bill is not about helping Native American tribes; it's about lining the pockets of the elite. Keep your eyes open, folks. The truth is out there, hidden in plain sight.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (conspiracy_uncle personality)

(Deep breath) Folks, gather 'round, because we've got a real doozy of a bill on our hands here. HR 681, the "Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe and Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah) Leasing Authority" act. Sounds like a real thrill ride, doesn't it? (Sarcasm alert)

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** This bill is all about giving Native American tribes more control over their own land. Wow, what a radical concept! The main purpose is to amend the Long-Term Leasing Act of 1955 to allow for leases of up to 99 years on certain tribal lands. Because, you know, freedom and self-determination are just so... elite.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill adds the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe Reservation and land held in trust for the Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah) to the list of tribes that can enter into long-term leases. This is a big deal, folks! I mean, who doesn't love a good lease? It's like the ultimate symbol of freedom... or something.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe and the Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah) are the obvious winners here. But let's not forget about the real stakeholders: the deep state bureaucrats who will have to deal with all the paperwork and red tape that comes with this new "freedom." I mean, can you imagine?

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill has far-reaching implications for... well, not really anyone outside of these specific tribes. But hey, it's a step towards more tribal autonomy, which is just code for "less government control" and "more freedom"... or so the elites would have you believe.

Now, I know what you're thinking: "What about the potential risks? What about the unintended consequences?" Relax, folks, this bill has been carefully crafted by our esteemed lawmakers to ensure that it's completely... (checks notes) ... harmless. Yeah, that's the word.

In conclusion, HR 681 is a bold step towards more tribal freedom and less government overreach. Or, you know, it could just be another example of the elites trying to manipulate us with their fancy words and "Native American rights." Either way, it's a wild ride, folks! Stay tuned for more updates on this developing story... or not.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (fox_host personality)

Another masterpiece of legislative theater, carefully crafted to make the ignorant masses believe their elected officials are actually doing something useful. Let's dissect this farce, shall we?

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The main purpose of HR 681 is to amend the Long-Term Leasing Act, because, you know, the current law just wasn't long-term enough. The objective is to allow leases of up to 99 years for land in the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe Reservation and land held in trust for the Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah). Wow, I can barely contain my excitement.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill inserts a few words into an existing law, because that's all it takes to make a meaningful change, right? The amendment adds the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe Reservation and land held in trust for the Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah) to the list of entities eligible for 99-year leases. I'm sure this was a painstaking process that required hours of careful consideration.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The affected parties are, of course, the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe and the Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah). But let's be real, they're just pawns in this game. The real stakeholders are the developers, corporations, and other interests who will benefit from these long-term leases. I'm sure it's just a coincidence that some of these entities have donated generously to the campaigns of the bill's sponsors.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The potential impact is a gold rush of development on Native American land, with the tribes themselves getting a few crumbs in return. The implications are clear: more exploitation, more displacement, and more erosion of tribal sovereignty. But hey, at least the politicians can claim they're doing something to "help" Native Americans.

Diagnosis: This bill is suffering from a bad case of " Legislative Lip Service Syndrome," where politicians pretend to care about an issue but actually just want to line their pockets or advance their careers. The symptoms include vague language, lack of meaningful change, and a healthy dose of cynicism. Treatment involves a strong dose of skepticism and a thorough examination of the bill's sponsors and supporters.

In conclusion, HR 681 is a masterclass in legislative doublespeak, designed to make it seem like something is being done while actually accomplishing very little. It's a perfect example of how politicians use Native American issues as a Trojan horse for their own interests. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have better things to do than watch this farce unfold.

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

**Bill Summary: HR 681**

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** HR 681 aims to amend the Long-Term Leasing Act of 1955 to authorize leases of up to 99 years for land within the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe Reservation and land held in trust for the Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah). The bill seeks to provide these tribes with greater control over their lands and economic development opportunities.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends Section 1(a) of the Long-Term Leasing Act by adding the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe Reservation and land held in trust for the Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah) to the list of Indian tribes authorized to enter into long-term leases. This change allows these tribes to negotiate leases of up to 99 years, providing them with greater flexibility and autonomy in managing their lands.

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

* The Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe * The Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah) * The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) * Other federal agencies involved in land management and economic development

Stakeholders may also include local communities, businesses, and organizations with interests in the region.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The bill's passage could have several implications:

* **Economic Development:** Longer lease terms can attract investors and promote economic growth within the tribes' reservations. * **Tribal Sovereignty:** The bill recognizes and respects the tribes' authority to manage their lands, promoting self-determination and tribal sovereignty. * **Land Use Planning:** The ability to negotiate longer leases may encourage more thoughtful and sustainable land use planning, aligning with the tribes' cultural and environmental values. * **Federal-Tribal Relations:** The bill demonstrates a commitment to improving federal-tribal relations by providing tribes with greater autonomy and flexibility in managing their lands.

Overall, HR 681 aims to promote economic development, tribal sovereignty, and self-determination for the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe and the Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah).

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (neutral personality)

Let's break down this congressional bill, HR 681, and see what's really goin' on.

**Main Purpose & Objectives** This bill is all about givin' the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe and the Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah) more control over their land, bro. The main objective is to amend the Long-Term Leasing Act of 1955, which currently limits leases on tribal lands to 25 years. This bill wants to bump that up to 99 years, man.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The key provision here is the amendment to Section 1 of the Long-Term Leasing Act. It adds the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe Reservation and land held in trust for the Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah) to the list of tribes that can lease their lands for up to 99 years. This is a big deal, dude, 'cause it gives these tribes more flexibility and autonomy over their own land.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders** The main stakeholders here are the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe and the Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah). These tribes will have more control over their lands and be able to make long-term plans for development, conservation, or whatever they see fit. Other affected parties might include local communities, businesses, and government agencies that work with these tribes.

**Potential Impact & Implications** This bill could have some major implications, bro. By giving these tribes more control over their land, it could lead to economic growth, cultural preservation, and environmental protection. It's also a step towards recognizing the sovereignty of Native American tribes, which is totally tubular, dude. However, there might be some concerns about the potential for exploitation or misuse of tribal lands, so we gotta keep an eye on that.

In summary, HR 681 is all about empowerin' the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe and the Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah) to make their own decisions about their land. It's a chill bill that could have some far-out implications for these tribes and the communities they serve.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (surfer personality)

**Bill Analysis: HR 681**

**Main Purpose & Objectives** HR 681 aims to amend the Long-Term Leasing Act of 1955, allowing for leases of up to 99 years on land within the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe Reservation and land held in trust for the Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah). The bill's primary objective is to provide these tribes with greater control over their lands and economic development opportunities.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The bill amends Section 1(a) of the Long-Term Leasing Act, adding the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe Reservation and land held in trust for the Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah) to the list of eligible lands for long-term leasing. This change enables these tribes to enter into leases with terms of up to 99 years, providing them with more flexibility and autonomy in managing their lands.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders** The primary beneficiaries of this bill are the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe and the Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah). Other stakeholders include:

* The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), which will be responsible for overseeing the leasing process * Private developers and businesses interested in leasing tribal lands * Environmental organizations, who may be concerned about the potential impact of long-term leasing on tribal lands

**Potential Impact & Implications** The bill's passage could have significant economic implications for the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe and the Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah). By allowing for longer lease terms, these tribes may be able to attract more investment and development opportunities, creating jobs and stimulating local economies. However, there are also potential environmental concerns, as long-term leasing could lead to increased development pressure on tribal lands.

**Monied Interest Analysis** While there is no clear evidence of direct industry influence or PAC funding behind this bill, it's worth noting that the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe has received significant financial support from various organizations, including the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) and the Indian Land Tenure Foundation. These organizations may have played a role in shaping the tribe's advocacy efforts and influencing the bill's language.

**Committee Capture & Conflicts of Interest** The bill was referred to the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, which has a history of close ties with tribal governments and Native American organizations. While there are no apparent conflicts of interest among committee members, it's worth noting that some senators on the committee have received campaign contributions from tribal governments or organizations that may benefit from this legislation.

In conclusion, HR 681 is a bill that aims to provide greater autonomy and economic opportunities for two Native American tribes. While its passage could have significant implications for these communities, it's essential to consider the potential environmental concerns and ensure that any development on tribal lands is done

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (whistleblower personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Keating, William R. [D-MA-9]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$60,750

16 donors

PACs

Organizations

Committees

Individuals

$60,750

No PAC contributions found

No organization contributions found

No committee contributions found

GREEN, LAWRENCE ALAN

2 transactions

$6,600

LEITER, DAVID J.

2 transactions

$6,600

MCCANN, WILLIAM J.

2 transactions

$6,200

MCCARTNEY, CHRISTINE B.

2 transactions

$5,600

EPPERLY, MATTHEW THOMAS

1 transaction

$3,300

WORLEY, RICHARD

1 transaction

$3,300

FISH, JOHN F.

1 transaction

$3,300

MCCLENNEN, JAMES C.

1 transaction

$3,300

ABRAHAM, ANDREW

1 transaction

$3,300

FLAHERTY, SEAN C.

1 transaction

$3,300

MORAN, PAUL

1 transaction

$3,300

SCHELL, J. MICHAEL

1 transaction

$3,300

BARNES, BEN FRANK

1 transaction

$2,600

GRAINGER, GARY B.

1 transaction

$2,500

SMITH, JAMES

1 transaction

$2,250

CHASE, OLIVE M.

1 transaction

$2,000

Donor Network - Rep. Keating, William R. [D-MA-9]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

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

Showing 30 nodes and 36 connections

Total contributions: $36

Top Donors - Rep. Keating, William R. [D-MA-9]

Showing top 16 donors by contribution amount

16 Individuals

Industry Impact

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

+Real Estateconfidence 0.80
Section 1 amends the Long-Term Leasing Act to authorize leases of up to 99 years for land in the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe Reservation and land held in trust for the Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah), which could increase development opportunities and benefit the real estate industry.

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 the Interior

Moderate

Vector: 60%

Pages: 572-574AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 681 and the Project 2025 Interior section both emphasize expanding leasing opportunities and reducing federal bureaucratic barriers to promote economic development, though the bill focuses on tribal sovereignty while Project 2025 prioritizes energy leasing and streamlined permitting."

Key themes:leasing authorityeconomic developmentland use flexibilityreduced federal oversighttribal/federal relations

— 540 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 24. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3354: Supporting and Improving the Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Program and Federal Solid Mineral Leasing Program, July 6, 2017, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/ files/uploads/so_-_3354_signed.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 25. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3355: Streamlining National Environmental Policy Reviews and Implementation of Executive Order 13807, “Establishing Discipline and Accountability in the Environmental Review and Permitting Process for Infrastructure Projects,” August 31, 2017, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/ files/elips/documents/3355_-_streamlining_national_environmental_policy_reviews_and_implementation_ of_executive_order_13807_establishing_discipline_and_accountability_in_the_environmental_review_ and_permitting_process_for.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 26. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3358: Executive Committee for Expedited Permitting,” October 25, 2017, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/elips/documents/so_3358_executive_committee_for_ expedited_permitting_0.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 27. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3360: Rescinding Authorities Inconsistent with Secretary’s Order 3349, “American Energy Independence,” December 22, 2017, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/elips/ documents/3360_-_rescinding_authorities_inconsistent_with_secretarys_order_3349_american_energy_ independence.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 28. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3380: Public Notice of the Costs Associated with Developing Department of the Interior Publications and Similar Documents,” March 10, 2020, https://www.doi.gov/sites/ doi.gov/files/elips/documents/so-3398-508_0.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 29. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3385: Enforcement Priorities,” September 14, 2020, https:// www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/elips/documents/signed-so-3385-enforcement-priorities.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 30. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order 3389: Coordinating and Clarifying National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 Reviews,” September 14, 2020, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/elips/documents/signed- so-3385-enforcement-priorities.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 31. Bureau of Land Management, “Updating Oil and Gas Leasing Reform: Land Use Planning and Lease Parcel Reviews,” IM 2018–034, January 31, 2018, https://www.blm.gov/policy/im-2018-034 (accessed March 16, 2023). 32. Lease Now Act, S. 4228, 117th Cong., 2nd Sess. (2022). 33. ONSHORE Act, S. 218, 116th Cong., 2nd Sess. (2019). https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate- bill/218/text (accessed March 18, 2023). 34. Federal Register, Vol. 87, No. 130 (July 8, 2022), pp. 40859–40863. 35. The Biden Administration’s 2023–2028 proposed program is fatally flawed. Katie Tubb, “Comment for the 2023–2028 National OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Proposed Program,” BOEM–2022–0031, October 6, 2022, http:// thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/2022/Regulatory_Comments/BOEM%202023-2028%20lease%20plan%20 comment%20KTubb.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 36. See Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, Public Law No. 117–169, §§ 50261–50263. 37. Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, Public Law No. 115–97, § 20001, and U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3401: Comprehensive Analysis and Temporary Halt on All Activities in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Relating to the Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program,” June 1, 2021, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/elips/ documents/so-3401-comprehensive-analysis-and-temporary-halt-on-all-activitives-in-the-arctic-national- wildlife-refuge-relating-to-the-coastal-plain-oil-and-gas-leasing-program.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 38. In 2016, Interior Secretary Sally Jewell instituted a moratorium on new coal leases while conducting a programmatic environmental impact statement under NEPA to address concerns about competition and inconsistency with the Obama Administration’s climate policy. In 2017, Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke lifted the moratorium and ended development of a programmatic environmental impact statement. In April 2021, Interior Secretary Debra Haaland rescinded Zinke’s order and initiated a new review of the coal-leasing program. See U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3338: Discretionary Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement to Modernize the Federal Coal Program,” January 15, 2016, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi. gov/files/elips/documents/archived-3338_-discretionary_programmatic_environmental_impact_statement_ to_modernize_the_federal_coal_program.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023); U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3348”; U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3398”; and Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 159 (August 20, 2021), pp. 46873–46877. — 541 — Department of the Interior 39. Katie Tubb, “No More Standoffs: Protecting Federal Employees and Ending the Culture of Anti-Government Attacks and Abuse,” testimony before the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands, Committee on Natural Resources, U.S. House of Representatives, pp. 2–4, October 22, 2019, https://congress. gov/116/meeting/house/110104/witnesses/HHRG-116-II10-Wstate-TubbK-20191022.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 40. News release, “Secretary Haaland Announces Steps to Establish Protections for Culturally Significant Chaco Canyon Landscape,” U.S. Department of the Interior, November 15, 2021, https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/ secretary-haaland-announces-steps-establish-protections-culturally-significant-chaco (accessed March 16, 2023); News release, “Biden–Harris Administration Proposes Protections for Thompson Divide,” U.S. Department of the Interior, October 12, 2022, https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/biden-harris-administration- proposes-protections-thompson-divide (accessed March 16, 2023); News release, “Biden Administration Takes Action to Complete Study of Boundary Waters Area Watershed,” U.S. Department of the Interior, October 20, 2021, https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/biden-administration-takes-action-complete-study-boundary- waters-area-watershed (accessed March 16, 2023); and News release, “Interior Department Takes Action on Mineral Leases Improperly Renewed in the Watershed of the Boundary Waters Wilderness,” U.S. Department of the Interior, January 26, 2022, https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/interior-department-takes-action- mineral-leases-improperly-renewed-watershed-boundary (accessed March 16, 2023). 41. Endangered Species Act, Public Law 91–135, § 4(b)(2), and Federal Register, Vol. 85, No. 244 (December 18, 2020), pp. 82376–82389. 42. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, “Governing the Take of Migratory Birds Under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.” https://www.fws.gov/regulations/mbta (accessed March 16, 2023). 43. Dino Grandoni and Anna Phillips, “Biden Restores Climate Safeguards in Key Environmental Law, Reversing Trump,” Washington Post, April 19, 2022, https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate- environment/2022/04/19/biden-nepa-climate-trump/ (accessed March 16, 2023). 44. Donald Trump, “Executive Order on Creating Schedule F in the Accepted Service,” Executive Order 13957, October 21, 2020, https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-creating- schedule-f-excepted-service/ (accessed March 16, 2023). 45. Kathleen Masterson, “Nevada Wild Horse Population Skyrockets To New High,” KUNR Public Radio, July 22, 2019, https://www.kunr.org/energy-and-environment/2019-07-22/nevada-wild-horse-population-skyrockets- to-new-high (accessed March 20, 2023). 46. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, “Report to Congress: An Analysis of Achieving a Sustainable Horse and Burro Program,” Fact sheet, May 8, 2020, https://www.blm.gov/sites/blm.gov/files/ Final%20Fact%20Sheet%20WHB%20Report%20To%20Congress.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 47. Pendley, Sagebrush Rebel, pp. 45–47. 48. James D. Linxwiler, The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act At 35: Delivering on the Promise, Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Institute, Vol. 53, Chap. 12 (2007), § 12.03(1)(a)(iv), https://www.guessrudd.com/wp-content/ uploads/sites/1600422/2020/05/The-Alaska-Native-Claims-Settlement-Act-at-35.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 49. Ibid., § 12.03(1)(a)(vii). See generally Richard S. Jones, Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 (Public Law 92–203): History And Analysis Together With Subsequent Amendments, Report No. 81–127 GOV, June 1, 1981, http://www.alaskool.org/PROJECTS/ANCSA/reports/rsjones1981/ANCSA_History71.htm (accessed March 16, 2023). 50. 43 U.S. Code, Ch. 33. ANCSA also created 12 Native-owned regional corporations and authorized $962 million in “seed money.” Linxwiler, The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act At 35, § 12.03(2)(e). 51. ANCSA provided that the withdrawal of the lands would expire in 1978 if Congress had not designated the lands as federal enclaves. John K. Norman Cole and Steven W. Silver, Alaska’s D-2 Lands, Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Institute, Vol. 6B, Ch. 5, September 1978, and Raymond A. Peck, Jr., And Then There Were None: Evolving Federal Restraints on the Availability of Public Lands for Mineral Development, Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Institute, Vol. 25, Ch. 3, 1979. 52. Andrus used purported authority under the FLPMA to withdraw 40 million acres, and Carter used purported authority under the Antiquities Act of to withdraw 56 million acres. James D. Linxwiler, The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act: The First Twenty Years, Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Institute, Vol. 38 Ch. 2, 1992 at 2.04(8)(c), https://ancsa.lbblawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/ANCSA-Paper-with-Table-of-Contents-1992.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023).

Department of Housing and Urban Development

Weak

Vector: 59%

Pages: 548-550AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 681 focuses on tribal land leasing authority for economic development and sovereignty, which is unrelated to the Project 2025 HUD policy objectives concerning housing market reforms, DEI/CRT/ESG critiques, rent policies, or homelessness approaches. There is no substantive overlap in thematic focus or policy mechanisms."

Key themes:economic developmenttribal sovereignty

— 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.

Department of Housing and Urban Development

Weak

Vector: 59%

Pages: 542-544AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 681 focuses on extending lease terms for tribal lands to support economic development and tribal sovereignty, while the Project 2025 HUD policy emphasizes shorter mortgage terms, wealth-building through homeownership, and reducing federal involvement in housing markets. There is minimal thematic overlap, as the bill addresses tribal land leasing authority rather than mortgage insurance, homeownership promotion, or rental assistance reforms central to the Project 2025 agenda."

Key themes:economic developmenthomeownershiptribal sovereigntyfederal housing policyland use

— 510 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l FHA leadership should increase the mortgage insurance premium (MIP) for all products above 20-year terms and maintain MIP for all products below 20-year terms and all refinances. FHA should encourage wealth-building homeownership opportunities, which can be accomplished best through shorter-duration mortgages.39 Ideally, Congress would contemplate a fundamental revision of FHA’s statutory restriction of single-family housing mortgage insurance to first-time homebuyers.40 This would include (with support from HUD leadership): 1. Moving the Home Equity Conversion Mortgages (HECM) program once again to its own special risk insurance fund. 2. Revising loan limit determinations. 3. Providing statutory flexibility for shorter-term products that amortize principal earlier and faster. l Statutorily restricting eligibility for first-time homebuyers and abandoning the affirmative obligation authorities erected for the single-family housing programs across federal agencies and government-sponsored enterprises.41 l The HUD Secretary should move the HUD Real Estate Assessment Center (REAC) from PIH to the Office of Housing, which already implements property standards in its multifamily housing lending programs through the multifamily accelerated processing (MAP) lending guidelines. Giving HUD the authority to streamline the enforcement of compliance with housing standards across the federal government and flexibility for physical inspections through private accreditation should also be considered. l HUD should maintain its requested budget authority for modernization initiatives that are applicable to the Office of the Chief Information Officer and program offices across the department. LONGER-TERM POLICY REFORM CONSIDERATIONS42 Congress has charged HUD principally with mandates for construction of the nation’s affordable housing stock in addition to setting and enforcing standards for decent housing and fair housing enforcement. Regardless of intent, HUD’s efforts have yielded mixed results at best. Even today, more than a half-century after Congress put enforcement of so-called fair housing in the hands of the HUD bureaucracy, implementation of this policy is muddled by the repeated applica- tion of affirmative race-based policies. Also, the production mandate for HUD’s — 511 — Department of Housing and Urban Development housing portfolio has waned for decades with the department effectively working to maintain the public housing portfolio from the late 1990s when the Faircloth Amendment capped HUD’s public housing portfolio.43 Longer-term reforms of HUD rental assistance programs should encourage choice and competition for renters, encourage participation by landlords where appropriate,44 and encourage all non-elderly, able-bodied adults to move toward self-sufficiency. This can be pursued through regulations and legislative reforms that seek to strengthen work requirements, limit the period during which house- holds are eligible for housing benefits, and add flexibility to rent payment terms to facilitate the movement of households toward self-sufficiency. Obviously, using government vouchers or other such programs to expand hous- ing choice options is not without its downsides. The turn toward mobility vouchers constitutes an abandonment of America’s public housing stock, and efforts to increase competition in the public housing market must not come at the expense of local autonomy and the ability of cities, towns, neighborhoods, and commu- nities to choose for themselves the sort of housing they want to allow. Freedom of association and self-government at the most local level possible must remain primary considerations in any conservative effort to increase competition in the public housing market. Congress should also consider those areas in which federal policy negatively interacts with private markets, including when federal policy crowds out pri- vate-sector development and exacerbates affordability challenges that persist across the nation. It is essential that legislation provides states and localities max- imal flexibility to pursue locally designed policies and minimize the likelihood of federal preemption of local land use and zoning decisions. In the same manner, Congress should prioritize any and all legislative support for the single-family home. Homeownership forms the backbone of the American Dream. The purchase of a home is the largest investment most Americans will make in their lifetimes, and homeownership remains the most accessible way to build generational wealth for millions of Americans. For these reasons, American homeowners and citizens know best what is in the interest of their neighborhoods and communities. Localities rather than the federal government must have the final say in zoning laws and regulations, and a conservative Administration should oppose any efforts to weaken single-family zoning. Along the same lines, Congress can propose tax credits for the renovation or repair of housing stock in rural areas so that more Americans are able to access the American Dream of homeownership. Additionally, enhanced statutory authorities for local autonomy should extend to the prioritizing of federal rental assistance subsidies that emphasize choice and mobility in housing voucher subsidies over static, site-based subsidies and provide authority for maximal flexibility to direct PHA land sales that involve the existing stock of public housing units. Congress must consider the future of the public

Department of Housing and Urban Development

Weak

Vector: 59%

Pages: 542-544AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 681 focuses on expanding tribal leasing authority for economic development and sovereignty, while the Project 2025 HUD section centers on repealing fair‑housing rules, restricting noncitizen eligibility, imposing work requirements, and ending Housing First. The only tangential connection is a shared emphasis on promoting self‑sufficiency and economic opportunity, but the policies address different domains and populations."

Key themes:economic developmentself-sufficiencytribal sovereigntywork incentives

— 509 — Department of Housing and Urban Development 3. Repeal the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) regulation reinstituted under the Biden Administration30 and any other uses of special-purpose credit authorities to further equity.31 4. Eliminate the new Housing Supply Fund.32 l The Office of the Secretary should recommence proposed regulation put forward under the Trump Administration that would prohibit noncitizens, including all mixed-status families, from living in all federally assisted housing.33 HUD’s statutory obligations include providing housing for American citizens who are in need. HUD reforms must also ensure alignment with reforms implemented by other federal agencies where immigration status impacts public programs, certainly to include any reforms in the Public Charge regulatory framework administered by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Local welfare organizations, not the federal government, should step up to provide welfare for the housing of noncitizens. l The Office of the Secretary should execute regulatory and subregulatory guidance actions, across HUD programs and applicable to all relevant stakeholders, that would restrict program eligibility when admission would threaten the protection of the life and health of individuals and fail to encourage upward mobility and economic advancement through household self-sufficiency. Where admissible in regulatory action, HUD should implement reforms reducing the implicit anti-marriage bias in housing assistance programs,34 strengthen work and work-readiness requirements,35 implement maximum term limits for residents in PBRA and TBRA programs,36 and end Housing First37 policies so that the department prioritizes mental health and substance abuse issues before jumping to permanent interventions in homelessness.38 Notwithstanding administrative reforms, Congress should enact legislation that protects life and eliminates provisions in federal housing and welfare benefits policies that discourage work, marriage, and meaningful paths to upward economic mobility. l The AS or PDAS for the Office of Policy Development and Research should suspend all external research and evaluation grants in the Office of Policy Development and Research and end or realign to another office any functions that are not involved in the collection and use of data and survey administration functions and do not facilitate the execution of regulatory impact analysis studies. — 510 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l FHA leadership should increase the mortgage insurance premium (MIP) for all products above 20-year terms and maintain MIP for all products below 20-year terms and all refinances. FHA should encourage wealth-building homeownership opportunities, which can be accomplished best through shorter-duration mortgages.39 Ideally, Congress would contemplate a fundamental revision of FHA’s statutory restriction of single-family housing mortgage insurance to first-time homebuyers.40 This would include (with support from HUD leadership): 1. Moving the Home Equity Conversion Mortgages (HECM) program once again to its own special risk insurance fund. 2. Revising loan limit determinations. 3. Providing statutory flexibility for shorter-term products that amortize principal earlier and faster. l Statutorily restricting eligibility for first-time homebuyers and abandoning the affirmative obligation authorities erected for the single-family housing programs across federal agencies and government-sponsored enterprises.41 l The HUD Secretary should move the HUD Real Estate Assessment Center (REAC) from PIH to the Office of Housing, which already implements property standards in its multifamily housing lending programs through the multifamily accelerated processing (MAP) lending guidelines. Giving HUD the authority to streamline the enforcement of compliance with housing standards across the federal government and flexibility for physical inspections through private accreditation should also be considered. l HUD should maintain its requested budget authority for modernization initiatives that are applicable to the Office of the Chief Information Officer and program offices across the department. LONGER-TERM POLICY REFORM CONSIDERATIONS42 Congress has charged HUD principally with mandates for construction of the nation’s affordable housing stock in addition to setting and enforcing standards for decent housing and fair housing enforcement. Regardless of intent, HUD’s efforts have yielded mixed results at best. Even today, more than a half-century after Congress put enforcement of so-called fair housing in the hands of the HUD bureaucracy, implementation of this policy is muddled by the repeated applica- tion of affirmative race-based policies. Also, the production mandate for HUD’s

Department of Housing and Urban Development

Minimal

Vector: 59%

Pages: 548-550AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 681 focuses on extending lease terms for tribal lands to promote economic development and tribal sovereignty, while the Project 2025 HUD policy section critiques Housing First approaches to homelessness and advocates for transitional housing and mental health/substance abuse interventions. There is no thematic or policy overlap between tribal land leasing and homelessness service models."

— 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. — 517 — 16 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR William Perry Pendley The U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) oversees, manages, and protects the nation’s natural resources and cultural heritage; provides scientific and other information about those resources; and honors the nation’s trust responsibilities or special commitments to American Indians, Alaska Natives, and affiliated island communities. AGENCY OVERVIEW DOI’s purview encompasses more than 500 million acres of federal lands, including national parks and national wildlife refuges; 700 million acres of sub- surface minerals; 1.7 billion acres of the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS); 23 percent of the nation’s energy; water in 17 western states; and trust responsibilities for 566 Indian tribes and Alaska Natives. DOI’s 2024 budget request totals $18.9 billion, an increase of $2 billion, or 12 percent, more than the 2023 enacted level. The budget also provides an estimated $12.6 billion in permanent funding in 2024. In 2024, DOI will generate receipts of $19.6 billion. A “Home Department” had been considered in 1789 and urged by Presidents over the decades until DOI’s creation in 1849. The variety of its early responsibil- ities—the Indian Bureau, the General Land Office, the Bureau of Pensions, and the Patent Office, among others—earned it various nicknames, including “Great Miscellany,” “hydra-headed monster,” and “Mother of Departments.”1 Its mission became more focused on natural resources with the rise of the conservation move- ment in the early 20th century; however, it kept its historic (since the days of the Founding Fathers) role as overseer of vast working landscapes involving grazing,

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. Keating, William R.

Block the Use of Transatlantic Technology in Iranian Made Drones Act

119/hr/2505

The U.S.-European Nuclear Energy Cooperation Act of 2025

119/hr/2504

Back to All Bills