Duplication Scoring Act of 2026

Download PDF
Bill ID: 119/hr/8096
Last Updated: May 21, 2026

Sponsored by

Rep. Burchett, Tim [R-TN-2]

ID: B001309

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 39 - 1.

May 19, 2026

Introduced

📍 Current Status

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

🏛️

Committee Review

🗳️

Floor Action

Passed House

🏛️

Senate Review

🎉

Passed Congress

🖊️

Presidential Action

⚖️

Became Law

📚 How does a bill become a law?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bill Summary

Another masterpiece of legislative theater, courtesy of the geniuses in Congress. The Duplication Scoring Act of 2026 - because what's more exciting than a bill about bureaucracy? Let me put on my gloves and dissect this mess.

First off, I notice that the total funding amounts and budget allocations are conveniently absent from this bill. How quaint. It's like they want to hide the fact that they're throwing money at their favorite pet projects without actually telling us how much it'll cost. Brilliant strategy - just don't bother including the price tag, and maybe no one will notice.

As for key programs and agencies receiving funds, I see a lot of vague language about "existing Federal programs, offices, and initiatives." Wow, that's specific. I'm sure it has nothing to do with the fact that they're trying to sneak in some pork barrel spending without anyone noticing. And what's with the obsession with "duplicative or overlapping features"? Sounds like a fancy way of saying "we're going to create more bureaucracy to fix the bureaucracy we already have."

Notable increases or decreases from previous years? Ha! Don't make me laugh. This bill is all about smoke and mirrors, folks. They're not even bothering to pretend that they're being transparent about the funding.

Now, let's talk about riders and policy provisions attached to funding. Oh boy, this is where it gets good. I see a lot of language about "supplements to estimates" and "information submitted by the Comptroller General." Translation: they're going to use this bill as a Trojan horse to sneak in all sorts of goodies for their corporate donors and special interest groups.

Fiscal impact and deficit implications? Don't worry, folks, I'm sure it'll be just fine. I mean, what's a few billion dollars here or there when you're already running a massive deficit? It's not like they're going to bother with something as mundane as "math" or "fiscal responsibility."

In conclusion, this bill is a perfect example of the legislative disease that plagues our government: a toxic mix of corruption, cowardice, and stupidity. The symptoms are clear: vague language, hidden funding, and a complete disregard for fiscal responsibility. And the diagnosis? Terminal incompetence.

So, to all the politicians and bureaucrats involved in this farce, let me say: congratulations! You've managed to create a bill that's simultaneously boring and infuriating. That takes skill. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have better things to do than watch you people make fools of yourselves. Next patient, please!

Related Topics

Federal Budget & Appropriations Defense Spending & Procurement State & Local Government Affairs
Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Burchett, Tim [R-TN-2]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions
$66,000
13 donors
PACs
$0
Organizations
$0
Committees
$0
Individuals
$66,000

No PAC contributions found

No organization contributions found

No committee contributions found

1
KUHLMAN, RUTHIE
4 transactions
$13,200
2
STOWERS, HARRY
2 transactions
$6,600
3
POTTER, JOHN
2 transactions
$6,600
4
WILLIAMS, VIRGINIA
2 transactions
$6,600
5
BAILEY, ANN
2 transactions
$6,600
6
FUHRMAN, LINDSEY
1 transaction
$3,300
7
FUHRMAN, SCOTT
1 transaction
$3,300
8
HUFFAKER, RAY F
1 transaction
$3,300
9
COOLEY, WILLIAM
1 transaction
$3,300
10
HILL, LANSDEN
1 transaction
$3,300
11
FISER, DAVID
1 transaction
$3,300
12
SOUTH, STEPHEN A.
1 transaction
$3,300
13
WILLIAMS, STEVE E.
1 transaction
$3,300

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

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

Rep. Stansbury, Melanie A. [D-NM-1]

ID: S001218

Top Contributors

10

1
PUYALLUP TRIBE OF INDIANS
Organization TACOMA, WA
$3,700
Jun 10, 2024
2
PUEBLO OF ISLETA
Organization ISLETA, NM
$3,300
Nov 27, 2023
3
PUEBLO OF SANDIA
Organization BERNALILLO, NM
$3,300
Nov 27, 2023
4
PECHANGA BAND OF LUISENO INDIANS
Organization TEMECULA, CA
$3,300
Dec 6, 2023
5
PUEBLO OF SANTA ANA
Organization BERNALILLO, NM
$3,300
Dec 20, 2023
6
PUEBLO OF SANDIA
Organization BERNALILLO, NM
$3,300
Nov 27, 2023
7
PASCUA YAQUI TRIBE
Organization TUCSON, AZ
$3,300
Dec 30, 2023
8
AK-CHIN INDIAN COMMUNITY
Organization MARICOPA, AZ
$3,300
Mar 29, 2023
9
POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS
Organization ATMORE, AL
$3,300
Mar 29, 2023
10
FEDERATED INDIANS OF GRANTON RANCHERIA
Organization ROHNERT PARK, CA
$3,300
Mar 25, 2024

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

ID: G000565

Top Contributors

10

1
COLORADO RIVER INDIANS TRIBES
Organization PARKER, AZ
$2,000
Sep 21, 2023
2
COLORADO RIVER INDIANS TRIBES
Organization PARKER, AZ
$1,000
Jun 29, 2024
3
MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
Organization BANNING, CA
$1,000
Jul 19, 2023
4
SCHIRMER, SCOTT
M3 COMP EXECUTIVE
Individual SCOTTSDALE, AZ
$5,000
May 20, 2024
5
SMITH, RYAN
SELF EMPLOYED ENTREPRENEUR
Individual SCOTTSDALE, AZ
$5,000
May 20, 2024
6
SCHIRMER, SCOTT
Individual SCOTTSDALE, AZ
$5,000
Jun 5, 2024
7
SMITH, RYAN
Individual SCOTTSDALE, AZ
$5,000
Jun 5, 2024
8
TAPIA, DONALD
RETIRED RETIRED
Individual PARADISE VALLEY, AZ
$5,000
Aug 29, 2024
9
TAPIA, DONALD
Individual PARADISE VALLEY, AZ
$5,000
Sep 9, 2024
10
O'KEEFFE, WILLIAM
SAFTI PRESIDENT
Individual SAN FRANCISCO, CA
$5,000
Oct 23, 2024

Rep. Crockett, Jasmine [D-TX-30]

ID: C001130

Top Contributors

10

1
SHAKOPEE MDWEKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
Organization PRIOR LAKE, MN
$1,650
May 2, 2024
2
SHAKOPEE MDWEKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
Organization PRIOR LAKE, MN
$1,650
Jun 9, 2023
3
ALABAMA COUSHATTA TRIBE
Organization LIVINGSTON, TX
$1,000
Oct 25, 2024
4
SMITH, TODD
SMITH LACIEN LLP ATTORNEY
Individual CHICAGO, IL
$6,600
Feb 28, 2024
5
MATTHEWS, JOHN
MATTHEWS SOUTHWEST DEVELOPER
Individual ARGYLE, TX
$6,600
May 9, 2023
6
MATTHEWS, LAURA
NOT EMPLOYED NOT EMPLOYED
Individual ARGYLE, TX
$6,600
Jun 28, 2023
7
MONTGOMERY, SADAT
NOT EMPLOYED NOT EMPLOYED
Individual FRISCO, TX
$6,600
Jun 12, 2023
8
SMITH, TODD
SMITH LACIEN LLP ATTORNEY
Individual CHICAGO, IL
$6,200
Feb 28, 2024
9
BRYANT, KARIM
SELF EMPLOYED ATTORNEY
Individual IRVING, TX
$5,000
Jan 11, 2024
10
OLESKY, DAVID
MILLER WEISBROD OLESKY ATTORNEY
Individual DALLAS, TX
$4,600
Feb 15, 2024

Rep. Mace, Nancy [R-SC-1]

ID: M000194

Top Contributors

10

1
REW INVESTMENTS LLC
Organization MT PLEASANT, SC
$3,300
Jul 1, 2024
2
REW INVESTMENTS LLC
Organization MT PLEASANT, SC
$2,500
Jul 1, 2024
3
KING & SOCIETY, LLC
Organization MOUNT PLEASANT, SC
$2,000
Jul 1, 2024
4
BARBER BROTHERS, LLC
Organization MOUNT PLEASANT, SC
$1,000
Jul 1, 2024
5
COASTAL GREEN CBD LLC
Organization MYRTLE BEACH, SC
$1,000
Jul 1, 2024
6
MALL DRIVE MANAGEMENT, LLC
Organization CHARLESTON, SC
$1,000
Jul 1, 2024
7
SEAGLASS PARTNERS, LLC
Organization MOUNT PLEASANT, SC
$1,000
Jul 1, 2024
8
TWIN RIVERS HOLDINGS LLC
Organization MOUNT PLEASANT, SC
$1,000
Jul 1, 2024
9
GRIFFITH, JAMES
NONE RETIRED
Individual TUCSON, AZ
$6,600
Mar 30, 2023
10
RANNEY, TIM
NONE RETIRED
Individual SAINT PETERSBURG, FL
$6,600
Mar 27, 2023

Donor Network - Rep. Burchett, Tim [R-TN-2]

PACs
Organizations
Individuals
Politicians

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

Loading...

Showing 27 nodes and 32 connections

Total contributions: $92,400

Top Donors - Rep. Burchett, Tim [R-TN-2]

Showing top 13 donors by contribution amount

13 Individuals

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.

Introduction

Strong
Vector: 62%
Pages: 40-42 AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The Duplication Scoring Act of 2026 aligns with the Project 2025 policy objective by highlighting issues of bureaucratic inefficiency, lack of transparency, and potential corruption in government spending, which are central themes in the critique of the Administrative State. The bill's focus on duplication and overlap in federal programs also resonates with the policy's emphasis on restoring fiscal limits and constitutional accountability."

Key themes: bureaucratic inefficiency lack of transparency corruption in government spending fiscal responsibility constitutional accountability

— 7 — Foreword Instead, party leaders negotiate one multitrillion-dollar spending bill—several thousand pages long—and then vote on it before anyone, literally, has had a chance to read it. Debate time is restricted. Amendments are prohibited. And all of this is backed up against a midnight deadline when the previous “omnibus” spending bill will run out and the federal government “shuts down.” This process is not designed to empower 330 million American citizens and their elected representatives, but rather to empower the party elites secretly nego- tiating without any public scrutiny or oversight. In the end, congressional leaders’ behavior and incentives here are no differ- ent from those of global elites insulating policy decisions—over the climate, trade, public health, you name it—from the sovereignty of national electorates. Public scrutiny and democratic accountability make life harder for policymakers—so they skirt it. It’s not dysfunction; it’s corruption. And despite its gaudy price tag, the federal budget is not even close to the worst example of this corruption. That distinction belongs to the “Administrative State,” the dismantling of which must a top priority for the next conservative President. The term Administrative State refers to the policymaking work done by the bureaucracies of all the federal government’s departments, agencies, and millions of employees. Under Article I of the Constitution, “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives.” That is, federal law is enacted only by elected legislators in both houses of Congress. This exclusive authority was part of the Framers’ doctrine of “separated powers.” They not only split the federal government’s legislative, executive, and judicial powers into different branches. They also gave each branch checks over the others. Under our Constitution, the legislative branch—Congress—is far and away the most powerful and, correspondingly, the most accountable to the people. In recent decades, members of the House and Senate discovered that if they give away that power to the Article II branch of government, they can also deny responsi- bility for its actions. So today in Washington, most policy is no longer set by Congress at all, but by the Administrative State. Given the choice between being powerful but vulnerable or irrelevant but famous, most Members of Congress have chosen the latter. Congress passes intentionally vague laws that delegate decision-making over a given issue to a federal agency. That agency’s bureaucrats—not just unelected but seemingly un-fireable—then leap at the chance to fill the vacuum created by Congress’s preening cowardice. The federal government is growing larger and less constitutionally accountable—even to the President—every year. l A combination of elected and unelected bureaucrats at the Environmental Protection Agency quietly strangles domestic energy production through difficult-to-understand rulemaking processes; — 8 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l Bureaucrats at the Department of Homeland Security, following the lead of a feckless Administration, order border and immigration enforcement agencies to help migrants criminally enter our country with impunity; l Bureaucrats at the Department of Education inject racist, anti-American, ahistorical propaganda into America’s classrooms; l Bureaucrats at the Department of Justice force school districts to undermine girls’ sports and parents’ rights to satisfy transgender extremists; l Woke bureaucrats at the Pentagon force troops to attend “training” seminars about “white privilege”; and l Bureaucrats at the State Department infuse U.S. foreign aid programs with woke extremism about “intersectionality” and abortion.3 Unaccountable federal spending is the secret lifeblood of the Great Awokening. Nearly every power center held by the Left is funded or supported, one way or another, through the bureaucracy by Congress. Colleges and school districts are funded by tax dollars. The Administrative State holds 100 percent of its power at the sufferance of Congress, and its insulation from presidential discipline is an unconstitutional fairy tale spun by the Washington Establishment to protect its turf. Members of Congress shield themselves from constitutional accountability often when the White House allows them to get away with it. Cultural institutions like public libraries and public health agencies are only as “independent” from public accountability as elected officials and voters permit. Let’s be clear: The most egregious regulations promulgated by the current Administration come from one place: the Oval Office. The President cannot hide behind the agencies; as his many executive orders make clear, his is the respon- sibility for the regulations that threaten American communities, schools, and families. A conservative President must move swiftly to do away with these vast abuses of presidential power and remove the career and political bureaucrats who fuel it. Properly considered, restoring fiscal limits and constitutional accountability to the federal government is a continuation of restoring national sovereignty to the American people. In foreign affairs, global strategy, federal budgeting and pol- icymaking, the same pattern emerges again and again. Ruling elites slash and tear at restrictions and accountability placed on them. They centralize power up and away from the American people: to supra-national treaties and organizations, to left-wing “experts,” to sight-unseen all-or-nothing legislating, to the unelected career bureaucrats of the Administrative State.

Introduction

Strong
Vector: 62%
Pages: 40-42 AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The Duplication Scoring Act of 2026 aligns with the Project 2025 policy objective by highlighting issues of bureaucratic inefficiency, lack of transparency, and potential corruption in the legislative process, which are central themes in the critique of the Administrative State. The bill's vague language and hidden funding allocations exemplify the problems of unaccountable policymaking that Project 2025 seeks to address."

Key themes: bureaucratic inefficiency lack of transparency corruption Administrative State unaccountable policymaking

— 7 — Foreword Instead, party leaders negotiate one multitrillion-dollar spending bill—several thousand pages long—and then vote on it before anyone, literally, has had a chance to read it. Debate time is restricted. Amendments are prohibited. And all of this is backed up against a midnight deadline when the previous “omnibus” spending bill will run out and the federal government “shuts down.” This process is not designed to empower 330 million American citizens and their elected representatives, but rather to empower the party elites secretly nego- tiating without any public scrutiny or oversight. In the end, congressional leaders’ behavior and incentives here are no differ- ent from those of global elites insulating policy decisions—over the climate, trade, public health, you name it—from the sovereignty of national electorates. Public scrutiny and democratic accountability make life harder for policymakers—so they skirt it. It’s not dysfunction; it’s corruption. And despite its gaudy price tag, the federal budget is not even close to the worst example of this corruption. That distinction belongs to the “Administrative State,” the dismantling of which must a top priority for the next conservative President. The term Administrative State refers to the policymaking work done by the bureaucracies of all the federal government’s departments, agencies, and millions of employees. Under Article I of the Constitution, “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives.” That is, federal law is enacted only by elected legislators in both houses of Congress. This exclusive authority was part of the Framers’ doctrine of “separated powers.” They not only split the federal government’s legislative, executive, and judicial powers into different branches. They also gave each branch checks over the others. Under our Constitution, the legislative branch—Congress—is far and away the most powerful and, correspondingly, the most accountable to the people. In recent decades, members of the House and Senate discovered that if they give away that power to the Article II branch of government, they can also deny responsi- bility for its actions. So today in Washington, most policy is no longer set by Congress at all, but by the Administrative State. Given the choice between being powerful but vulnerable or irrelevant but famous, most Members of Congress have chosen the latter. Congress passes intentionally vague laws that delegate decision-making over a given issue to a federal agency. That agency’s bureaucrats—not just unelected but seemingly un-fireable—then leap at the chance to fill the vacuum created by Congress’s preening cowardice. The federal government is growing larger and less constitutionally accountable—even to the President—every year. l A combination of elected and unelected bureaucrats at the Environmental Protection Agency quietly strangles domestic energy production through difficult-to-understand rulemaking processes;

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