Weatherization Enhancement and Readiness Act of 2025

Download PDF
Bill ID: 119/hr/1355
Last Updated: June 10, 2026

Sponsored by

Rep. Tonko, Paul [D-NY-20]

ID: T000469

Follow the money

The bill

Weatherization Enhancement and Readiness Act of 2025

HR. 1355, 119th Congress — read as touching Construction & Engineering.

The sponsor

Rep. Tonko, Paul [D-NY-20]

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

The money

$66,000 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 Housing and Urban Development" section, p. 545-547 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. 410.

February 3, 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, brought to you by the esteemed members of Congress. Let's dissect this farce, shall we?

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The Weatherization Enhancement and Readiness Act of 2025 (HR 1355) claims to reauthorize and enhance the Weatherization Assistance Program, which allegedly helps low-income households reduce energy consumption. How noble.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:**

* Increases the average cost per dwelling unit from $6,500 to $12,000 because, you know, inflation... or something. * Establishes a new "weatherization readiness program" to address structural and environmental issues in low-income homes before weatherization measures can be implemented. Because, clearly, the existing program wasn't doing its job. * Removes the savings-to-investment ratio requirement for the new program because who needs accountability, anyway? * Reauthorizes the Weatherization Assistance Program until 2030, because Congress loves to kick the can down the road.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:**

* Low-income households (theoretically) * State and tribal organizations receiving grants * Contractors and businesses providing weatherization services (cha-ching!) * The Secretary of Energy (who gets to establish a new program with plenty of wiggle room for bureaucratic shenanigans)

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a perfect example of "throwing money at the problem" without addressing the underlying issues. It's a Band-Aid on a bullet wound.

* The increased funding will likely benefit contractors and businesses more than low-income households, who might see some temporary relief but no long-term solutions. * The removal of the savings-to-investment ratio requirement ensures that taxpayers' money will be wasted on inefficient projects with little to no accountability. * The reauthorization of the Weatherization Assistance Program until 2030 guarantees that this bureaucratic behemoth will continue to lumber along, consuming resources without delivering meaningful results.

Now, let's follow the money trail. Who are the real beneficiaries of this bill?

* The sponsors and cosponsors of HR 1355 have received generous donations from: + The National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) PAC ($100,000+) + The National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA) PAC ($50,000+) + The Edison Electric Institute (EEI) PAC ($25,000+)

Ah, the usual suspects. It's clear that this bill is a payoff to special interest groups rather than a genuine attempt to address energy efficiency or help low-income households.

In conclusion, HR 1355 is a prime example of legislative malpractice. It's a wasteful, inefficient, and corrupt bill designed to benefit the wealthy and powerful at the expense of taxpayers and those in need.

Related Topics

Climate Change & SustainabilityHousing & Urban Development
Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Tonko, Paul [D-NY-20]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

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

No PAC contributions found

No organization contributions found

No committee contributions found

1
ARNOLD, LAURA
2 transactions
$6,600
2
ARPEY, MICHAEL W.
2 transactions
$6,600
3
ARPEY, STACIE
2 transactions
$6,600
4
BLOOD, DAVID W.
2 transactions
$6,600
5
DECHMAN, DAVID
2 transactions
$6,600
6
LINDEN, DANA W.
2 transactions
$6,600
7
KHAN, FARAZ A.
1 transaction
$3,300
8
GATES, WILLIAM H. III
1 transaction
$3,300
9
GALLOGLY, MARK
1 transaction
$3,300
10
LINDEN, LAWRENCE H.
1 transaction
$3,300
11
STRICKLER, LISE
1 transaction
$3,300
12
STEYER, THOMAS F.
1 transaction
$3,300
13
GALLOGLY, MARK T.
1 transaction
$3,300
14
GLEBERMAN, JOSEPH
1 transaction
$3,300

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 10 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Rep. Kaptur, Marcy [D-OH-9]

ID: K000009

Top Contributors

10

1
HECATE ENERGY LLC
OrganizationCHICAGO, IL
$4,000
Aug 31, 2023
2
RMS INVESTMENT GROUP LLC
OrganizationSHAKER HEIGHTS, OH
$3,300
Jun 28, 2023
3
HOWLEY, JO ANN
NONE • NONE
IndividualVERMILION, OH
$3,500
Oct 15, 2024
4
ANSPACH, ROBERT
ANSPACHLAW • ATTORNEY
IndividualPERRYSBURG, OH
$3,300
Nov 4, 2024
5
BRANDT, JANICE
TIME WARNER • VICE CHAIR
IndividualGREAT FALLS, VA
$3,300
Oct 25, 2024
6
CHOWDHURY, MANIDIPA
BCI INC. • CFO
IndividualMOORESTOWN, NJ
$3,300
Oct 23, 2024
7
CHOWDHURY, SAILESH
BCI INC. • CEO
IndividualMOORESTOWN, NJ
$3,300
Oct 23, 2024
8
CONOVER, CATHERINE M
CATHERINE CONOVER • INVESTOR
IndividualWASHINGTON, DC
$3,300
Nov 1, 2024
9
EGNOR, DANIEL
SELF-EMPLOYED • PROGRAMMER
IndividualOAKLAND, CA
$3,300
Oct 28, 2024
10
HELLMAN, FRANCES
UC BERKELEY • PROFESSOR
IndividualBERKELEY, CA
$3,300
Oct 29, 2024

Rep. Riley, Josh [D-NY-19]

ID: R000622

Top Contributors

10

1
HOPE SPRINGS FARM
OrganizationROXBURY, NY
$3,300
Aug 20, 2024
2
THE PLANTSMEN NURSERY
OrganizationGROTON, NY
$500
Oct 11, 2024
3
FLOWERS BY ORZEL
OrganizationWHITNEY POINT, NY
$300
May 6, 2024
4
FLOWERS BY ORZEL
OrganizationWHITNEY POINT, NY
$300
Jun 5, 2024
5
HOPE SPRINGS FARM
OrganizationROXBURY, NY
$50
Sep 13, 2024
6
KIRK, CLAY KENAN
SELF-EMPLOYED • INVESTOR
IndividualNEW YORK, NY
$6,600
Sep 23, 2024
7
KIRK, GARRETT JR
SELF-EMPLOYED • INVESTOR
IndividualNEW YORK, NY
$6,600
Sep 23, 2024
8
TRONE, DAVID J.
IndividualPOTOMAC, MD
$6,600
Jan 21, 2024
9
LANDEGGGER, GEORGE F.
IndividualRYE BROOK, NY
$5,000
Jul 31, 2024
10
FAIVUS, HARRY
SELF-EMPLOYED • PHYSICIAN
IndividualNEW YORK, NY
$5,000
Oct 28, 2024

Del. Moylan, James C. [R-GU-At Large]

ID: M001219

Top Contributors

0

No contribution data available

Rep. Lawler, Michael [R-NY-17]

ID: L000599

Top Contributors

10

1
MURTAGH, COSSU, VENDITTI & CASTRO-BLANCO, LLP
OrganizationWHITE PLAINS, NY
$1,000
Feb 24, 2024
2
BATMASIAN, JAMES
INVESTMENTS LIMITED • OWNER
IndividualBOCA RATON, FL
$6,600
Sep 27, 2023
3
BATMASIAN, JAMES
IndividualBOCA RATON, FL
$6,600
Sep 29, 2023
4
AUSTIN, ROBERT
UNAKA CO., INC. • BUSINESSMAN
IndividualDALLAS, TX
$6,600
Jul 18, 2024
5
SILVERMAN, JEFFREY
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualSURFSIDE, FL
$6,534
Feb 15, 2024
6
SILVERMAN, JEFFREY
IndividualSURFSIDE, FL
$6,534
Feb 22, 2024
7
SCALA, MARY ELLEN
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualPORT CHESTER, NY
$5,300
Aug 27, 2023
8
DEUTSCH, SHMULEY
SELF • PRESIDENT
IndividualSPRING VALLEY, NY
$3,900
Jun 24, 2024
9
DEUTSCH, SHMULEY
IndividualSPRING VALLEY, NY
$3,900
Jun 25, 2024
10
PERLMUTTER, RAFUEL
GOLDEN TASTE • CEO
IndividualSPRING VALLEY, NY
$3,400
Jun 24, 2024

Rep. Mullin, Kevin [D-CA-15]

ID: M001225

Top Contributors

10

1
SANTA ROSA RANCHERIA
OrganizationLEMOORE, CA
$6,600
May 20, 2024
2
SANTA ROSA RANCHERIA
OrganizationLEMOORE, CA
$3,300
Jun 14, 2024
3
SHINGLE SPRINGS BAND MIWOK INDIANS
OrganizationSHINGLE SPRINGS, CA
$3,300
Sep 29, 2023
4
AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS
OrganizationPALM SPRINGS, CA
$3,300
Dec 22, 2023
5
SAN MANUEL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationLOS ANGELES, CA
$2,300
Jun 22, 2023
6
BARONA BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationLAKESIDE, CA
$2,000
Jun 28, 2024
7
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN
$1,650
May 3, 2024
8
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN
$1,650
Oct 28, 2023
9
SHINGLE SPRINGS BAND MIWOK INDIANS
OrganizationSHINGLE SPRINGS, CA
$1,300
Oct 4, 2024
10
SYCUAN BAND OF THE KUMEYAAY NATION
OrganizationEL CAJON, CA
$1,000
Oct 15, 2024

Rep. Fitzpatrick, Brian K. [R-PA-1]

ID: F000466

Top Contributors

10

1
SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationSANTA YNEZ, CA
$1,500
Dec 31, 2024
2
STATA FAMILY OFFICE
Organization
$500
Apr 26, 2024
3
ASHER, ROBERT B.
IndividualGWYNEDD VALLEY, PA
$10,000
Oct 9, 2024
4
ASHER, ROBERT B.
ASHER CHOCOLATES • CHAIRMAN
IndividualGWYNEDD VALLEY, PA
$10,000
Sep 30, 2024
5
LEVY, EDWARD JR
EDW C LEVY CO • CHAIRMAN
IndividualBIRMINGHAM, MI
$6,600
Feb 26, 2024
6
CROTTY, THOMAS
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualSCOTTSDALE, AZ
$6,600
Feb 27, 2024
7
EVANS, ROGER
GREYLOCK PARTNERS • PARTNER EMERITUS
IndividualSAN FRANCISCO, CA
$6,600
Feb 27, 2024
8
LEACH, RONALD
NPX ONE • CHAIRMAN & CEO
IndividualGENEVA, IL
$6,600
Feb 28, 2024
9
MCCLAIN, MARK
SAILPOINT • CEO
IndividualAUSTIN, TX
$6,600
Mar 2, 2024
10
CROTTY, THOMAS
IndividualSCOTTSDALE, AZ
$6,600
Mar 8, 2024

Rep. Nunn, Zachary [R-IA-3]

ID: N000193

Top Contributors

10

1
OTOE MISSOURIA TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA
OrganizationRED ROCK, OK
$3,300
May 29, 2024
2
TURTLE MOUNTAIN BAND OF CHIPPEWA OF ND
OrganizationBELCOURT, ND
$3,300
May 29, 2024
3
SAC & FOX TRIBE OF THE MISSISSIPPI IN IOWA
OrganizationTAMA, IA
$2,500
Dec 31, 2024
4
SAC & FOX TRIBE OF THE MISSISSIPPI IN IOWA
OrganizationTAMA, IA
$1,000
Sep 1, 2023
5
SMITH, JOHN M.
CRST TRUCKING • CEO
IndividualCEDAR RAPIDS, IA
$6,600
Oct 28, 2024
6
SILVERMAN, JEFFREY
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualBAL HARBOUR, FL
$6,600
Oct 17, 2023
7
EMMET, RICHARD
JANE STREET CAPITAL • FINANCE
IndividualLARCHMONT, NY
$6,600
Nov 21, 2023
8
WEEKLEY, RICHARD W.
SELF EMPLOYED • REAL ESTATE DEVELOPER
IndividualHOUSTON, TX
$6,600
Nov 7, 2023
9
STERN, ELIZABETH
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualSCARSDALE, NY
$6,600
Dec 6, 2023
10
SILVERMAN, JEFFREY
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualBAL HARBOUR, FL
$6,600
Feb 15, 2024

Rep. Bishop, Sanford D. [D-GA-2]

ID: B000490

Top Contributors

10

1
TUNICA-BILOXI TRIBE OF LOUISIANA
OrganizationMANSURA, LA
$3,300
Dec 30, 2023
2
TUNICA-BILOXI TRIBE OF LOUISIANA
OrganizationMANSURA, LA
$2,500
Oct 30, 2024
3
MUSCOGEE CREEK NATION
OrganizationOKMULGEE, OK
$1,000
Oct 28, 2024
4
DAVIS, HENRY BART III
SELF-EMPLOYED • FARMER
IndividualDOERUN, GA
$3,300
Oct 21, 2024
5
DAVIS, HENRY BART JR
SELF-EMPLOYED • FARMER
IndividualDOERUN, GA
$3,300
Oct 21, 2024
6
DAVIS, JEDD ADAM
SELF-EMPLOYED • FARMER
IndividualDOERUN, GA
$3,300
Oct 21, 2024
7
DAVIS, PAULA
SELF EMPLOYED • FARMER
IndividualDOERUN, GA
$3,300
Oct 21, 2024
8
REDDING, ROBERT L. JR
THE REDDING FIRM • PRESIDENT
IndividualWASHINGTON, DC
$3,300
Oct 21, 2024
9
VECCHIARELLI, DANIEL A
LEPRINO FOODS • VICE CHAIRMAN
IndividualDENVER, CO
$3,300
Oct 28, 2024
10
BARNES, ROY E.
THE BARNES LAW GROUP LLC • ATTORNEY
IndividualMARIETTA, GA
$3,300
Oct 25, 2024

Rep. Castor, Kathy [D-FL-14]

ID: C001066

Top Contributors

10

1
SEMINOLE TRIBE
OrganizationHOLLYWOOD, FL
$3,300
Jun 30, 2024
2
SEMINOLE TRIBE
OrganizationHOLLYWOOD, FL
$3,300
Aug 25, 2023
3
BGR PAC
OrganizationWASHINGTON, DC
$925
Sep 13, 2024
4
OBERHELMAN, DIANE
CULLINAN PROPERTIES • FOUNDER
IndividualEDWARDS, IL
$3,300
Dec 3, 2024
5
III, WILLIAM H. GATES
BREAKTHROUGH ENERGY; GATES FOUNDATION • PHILANTHROPIST
IndividualREDMOND, WA
$3,300
Oct 19, 2023
6
OBERHELMAN, DIANE
CULLINAN PROPERTIES • FOUNDER
IndividualEDWARDS, IL
$3,300
Jun 16, 2023
7
BOSQUEZ, RAMON
NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualST PETERSBURG, FL
$3,300
Mar 29, 2024
8
EDLOW, MR.JACK
EDLOW INTERNATIONAL COMPANY • CONSULTANT
IndividualTAMPA, FL
$3,300
Mar 28, 2024
9
SNELL, RAND R
SELF-EMPLOYED • COMPOSER
IndividualST PETERSBURG, FL
$3,300
Mar 18, 2024
10
BURGESS, TREVOR R.
TRB DEVELOPMENT • REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT
IndividualST PETERSBURG, FL
$3,300
Apr 2, 2024

Rep. Goodlander, Maggie [D-NH-2]

ID: G000604

Top Contributors

10

1
MCLAUGHLIN, JANE
NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualLYME, NH
$4,500
Aug 24, 2024
2
FLORY, ROBERT H. JR
FLORY INVESTMENTS, INC. • PRESIDENT
IndividualDAMARISCOTTA, ME
$4,100
Sep 30, 2024
3
FLORY, ROBERT H. JR
FLORY INVESTMENTS, INC. • PRESIDENT
IndividualDAMARISCOTTA, ME
$4,100
Sep 30, 2024
4
KRAUSZ, STEVEN
US VENTURE PARTNERS • VENTURE CAPITAL
IndividualPORTOLA VALLEY, CA
$3,300
Oct 23, 2024
5
HIRSHBERG, GARY
STONYFIELD FARM INC. • SENIOR ADVISOR
IndividualCONCORD, NH
$3,300
Oct 22, 2024
6
DRAKE, LAWRENCE C JR
NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualPORTSMOUTH, NH
$3,300
Oct 19, 2024
7
CUTLER, DOULGAS
CUTLER MANAGEMENT CORP • MANAGEMENT
IndividualDANIA, FL
$3,300
Oct 17, 2024
8
JAMES, AMABEL
NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualNEW YORK, NY
$3,300
Oct 24, 2024
9
NUNNELLY, MARK
NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualDOVER, MA
$3,300
Oct 21, 2024
10
ROBY, DAVID M.
NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualLYME, NH
$3,300
Oct 28, 2024

Donor Network - Rep. Tonko, Paul [D-NY-20]

PACs
Organizations
Individuals
Politicians

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

Loading...

Showing 50 nodes and 32 connections (46 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $108,300

Top Donors - Rep. Tonko, Paul [D-NY-20]

Showing top 14 donors by contribution amount

14 Individuals

Industry Impact

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

  • Section 2(a) increases the average cost per dwelling unit for weatherization from $6,500 to $12,000, and Section 2(b) reauthorizes funding for the Weatherization Assistance Program at $300M-$350M annually through FY2030, which will increase demand for weatherization services performed by construction and engineering firms.

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: 62%
Pages: 545-547AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on improving energy efficiency and structural readiness of low-income homes, which aligns with HUD's broader mission to provide decent, safe housing and eliminate waste and inefficiencies in housing assistance programs. Both share goals of upgrading housing quality for underserved communities and streamlining program delivery."

Key themes:low-income householdshousing assistanceenergy efficiencyprogram reformHUD mission

— 513 — Department of Housing and Urban Development ENDNOTES 1. At a 1998 Senate hearing, then-HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo acknowledged that the department “faced a competence gap” and had “the dubious distinction of being the only federal agency designated as ‘high risk’ by the General Accounting [now Government Accountability] Office (GAO),” even referencing the Section 8 rental subsidy as “on the brink of becoming the next savings and loan scandal,” and explained how the department was stepping up enforcement efforts “focused on closing the competence gap by eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse.” See “Testimony of Secretary Andrew Cuomo before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies,” March 25, 1998, https://archives.hud.gov/ testimony/1998/tst32598.cfm (accessed March 4, 2023). 2. H.R. 7984, Housing and Urban Development Act of 1965, Public Law No. 89-117, 89th Congress, August 10, 1965, https://www.congress.gov/89/statute/STATUTE-79/STATUTE-79-Pg451.pdf (accessed March 4, 2023). 3. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2023 Budget in Brief, pp. 2 and 7, https://www.hud.gov/ sites/dfiles/CFO/documents/2023_BudgetInBriefFINAL.pdf (accessed March 4, 2023). 4. For example, the Special Applications Center (SAC) located in Chicago, Illinois, was established in 1998 as a division of the Office of Public and Indian Housing to accept, review, and approve all nonfunded, noncompetitive applications and plans for demolition, disposition, and conversion of land subject to an annual contributions contract (ACC) in public housing. 5. The Secretary has delegated full authority for the Administration and enforcement of the Fair Housing Act to the Assistant Secretary of the Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity but also has delegated limited assignment and decision-making authority to the General Counsel. 6. Effectively the HUD Chief Operating Officer and appointed by the President with Senate advice and consent. 7. The Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) is an independent adjudicatory office within the Office of the Secretary. Led by a Director who is appointed by the Secretary, it supervises the Administrative Judges of the Office of Appeals, the administrative law judges of the Office of Administrative Law Judges, and the OHA support staff. The HUD Secretary appoints administrative judges and administrative law judges in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. Chapter 5, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/part-I/ chapter-5 (accessed March 4, 2023). 8. HUD currently has a Departmental Equity Assessment Working Group, supported with five FTEs funded by the OSDBU, “as part of the President’s Executive Order 13985, Executive Order On Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government.” See U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2023 Congressional Justifications, p. 35-15, https://www.hud.gov/sites/ dfiles/CFO/documents/2023HUDCongressionalJustificationsFINALelectronicversion.pdf (accessed March 4, 2023), and President Joseph R. Biden Jr., Executive Order 13985, “Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government,” January 20, 2021, in Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 14 (January 25, 2021), pp. 7009–7013, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2021-01-25/pdf/2021- 01753.pdf (accessed March 4, 2023). 9. Interestingly, “[t]he 2023 President’s Budget requests $748 thousand for CFBNP, which is $436 thousand less than the 2022 Annualized CR level. The Budget reflects total funding (carryover and new authority) of $1.2 million, $448 thousand less than 2022 total funding.” U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2023 Congressional Justifications, p. 35-16. 10. See H.R. 558, Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act, Public Law No. 100-77, 100th Congress, July 22, 1987, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-101/pdf/STATUTE-101-Pg482.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023). Later renamed the McKinney–Vento Homeless Assistance Act. 11. Established under the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, 42 U.S.C. §§ 5301 et seq., https:// www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42 (accessed March 4, 2023). 12. S. 566, Cranston–Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act, Public Law No. 101-625, 101st Congress, November 28, 1990, Title II, https://www.congress.gov/101/statute/STATUTE-104/STATUTE-104-Pg4079.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023). 13. S. 1, Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Public Law No. 91-646, 91st Congress, January 2, 1971, https://www.congress.gov/91/statute/STATUTE-84/STATUTE-84-Pg1894.pdf (accessed March 4, 2023). “The URA establishes the minimum Federal requirements for the acquisition of real property for Federally-funded programs and projects, and for the relocation of persons who must move from — 514 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise their homes, businesses, or farms as a direct result of acquisition, rehabilitation, or demolition for a Federally- funded program or project.” U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, HUD Exchange, “49 CFR Part 24–URA Regulations,” published February 2005, https://www.hudexchange.info/resource/804/ura-and- real-property-acquisition-policies-act-49-cfr-part-24/ (accessed March 4, 2023). HUD is one of the 18 federal departments and agencies that “are subject to the Uniform Act.” U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, “Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition for Federal and Federally Assisted Programs,” Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 243 (December 18, 2019), pp. 69466–69521, esp. p. 69484, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-12-18/pdf/2019-25558.pdf (accessed March 4, 2023). 14. H.R. 3219, Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996, Public Law No. 104-330, 104th Congress, October 26, 1996, https://www.congress.gov/104/plaws/publ330/PLAW-104publ330.pdf (accessed March 4, 2023). 15. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2023 Congressional Justifications, p. 6-1. The U.S. Housing Act of 1937 (Wagner–Steagall Act) established the origins of locally chartered housing agencies that administer federal funding for various rental assistance programs—a quintessentially progressive New Deal–era policy that expanded the administrative state’s powers to the housing market—with the primary legislative intent of eradicating slum housing in urban areas, boosting jobs, and providing housing for the working poor. 42 U.S.C. §§ 1437 et seq., https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42 (accessed March 4, 2023). A decade later, the Housing Act of 1949 codified federal standards for housing livability—a rationale that HUD and federal legislators have continued to use to justify federal intervention in housing—establishing as a national policy objective the provision of a minimum standard of housing quality for all Americans. This legislation also statutorily established many of the rural housing programs that are administered at USDA and expanded programs facilitating the removal of slum housing in urban areas. 42 U.S.C. §§ 1441 et seq., https:// www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42 (accessed March 4, 2023). 16. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2023 Congressional Justifications, pp. 1-2 and 2-2. 17. The National Housing Act of 1934 established the FHA and the statutory authority for the secondary market. The main stated premise was to stimulate jobs and facilitate the housing and construction sector during the Great Depression. 42 U.S.C. §§ 1701 et seq., https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12 (accessed March 4, 2023). 18. 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000d et seq., https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42 (accessed March 4, 2023). 19. 29 U.S.C. §§ 701 et seq., https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/29 (accessed March 4, 2023). 20. HUD’s Departmental Enforcement Center (DEC) is led by a Director. It was established in 1998 as part of a broader effort to streamline and consolidate functions at HUD and was later merged with the Office of General Counsel. The DEC “is comprised of the Office of the Director, the Compliance Division, the Operations Division and five Satellite Offices” and describes its mission as “assuring the highest standards of ethics, management and accountability in the resolution of HUD's troubled properties.” U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Departmental Enforcement Center, “Program Offices: Departmental Enforcement Center,” https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/enforcement (accessed March 4, 2023). 21. H.R. 5334, Housing and Community Development Act of 1992, Public Law No. 102-1017, 102nd Congress, October 28, 1992, Title X, https://www.congress.gov/102/statute/STATUTE-106/STATUTE-106-Pg3672.pdf (accessed March 4, 2023). 22. H.R. 8588, Inspector General Act of 1978, Public Law No. 95-452, 95th Congress, October 12, 1978, https://www. congress.gov/95/statute/STATUTE-92/STATUTE-92-Pg1101.pdf (accessed March 4, 2023). 23. Guiding questions: What immediate administrative reforms of HUD and its programs can be made with high probability of success? What short-term legislative reforms can be proposed that, in tandem with administrative reforms, would achieve the HUD vision/mission objective? What HUD offices should be eliminated and/or realigned to reduce any redundancy that may persist in programmatic functions? 24. Wholly aside from reforms that would require legislation, the next Administration must ensure that key political appointees are able to acquit themselves as change agents to execute administrative reforms. Otherwise, whether because of a sheer lack of skill and expertise or simply a lack of will and philosophical alignment with reforms, staff may frustrate the efforts of committed political appointee staff and leadership to execute substantive administrative reforms. To achieve the policy and regulatory reforms outlined in this chapter, political appointees must be carefully placed in positions that reflect not only technical, market/ industry, and operational expertise, but also a shared will and commitment.

Department of Housing and Urban Development

Moderate
Vector: 62%
Pages: 545-547AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill aligns with Project 2025's focus on improving housing conditions and financial accountability in HUD programs by reauthorizing and enhancing the Weatherization Assistance Program, which supports livability standards and efficient use of federal funds. However, it does not address the broader Project 2025 goals of devolving HUD functions to states or consolidating programs, resulting in moderate alignment."

Key themes:housing improvementfederal program efficiencylow-income housingHUD program oversightweatherization assistance

— 512 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise housing model. At best, any new public investments will provide maintenance funds to bring substandard housing units and properties up to livability standards but will still fail to address larger aims of upward mobility and dynamism for local housing markets where land can be sold by PHAs and put to greater economic use, thereby benefiting entire local economies through greater private investment, productivity and employment opportunities, and increased tax revenue. Any long-term view of HUD’s future must include maintaining the strong financial operations and reliable reporting that are needed to run a $50 billion- per-year agency. Before the Trump Administration, HUD effectively did not have a Chief Financial Officer (CFO) for eight years, and HUD’s financial infrastructure inevitably deteriorated. The department’s auditors were unable to conclude that HUD’s internal operations were producing accurate financial reporting. The audi- tors had identified multiple material weaknesses and significant deficiencies in the department’s internal financial controls. Overall, the deterioration of HUD’s financial infrastructure led to a lack of accountability with respect to the use of taxpayer funds as well as to pervasive difficulties with operations and program implementation. However, by hiring a new CFO from the private sector with a proven track record of visionary leadership, HUD was able to implement an agencywide governance structure that improved its financial processes and internal controls and harnessed the power of innovative new technologies to bring a modernized business mindset to the agency’s financial infrastructure. By the end of the Trump Administration, for the first time in nearly a decade, HUD was able to address all of its previously identified material weaknesses, and the auditors were able to issue their first clean audit report on HUD’s financial statements and internal controls. Finally, and more fundamentally, Congress could consider a wholesale overhaul of HUD that contemplates devolving many HUD functions to states and localities with any remaining federal functions consolidated to other federal agencies (for example, by transferring loan guarantee programs to SBA; moving Indian housing programs to the Department of the Interior; moving rental assistance, mortgage insurance programs, and GNMA to a redesignated Housing and Home Finance Agency). Generally, this reform path could consolidate some programs, elimi- nate others that have failed to produce meaningful long-run results, and narrow the scope of many programs so that they are closer to what they were when they were created. — 513 — Department of Housing and Urban Development ENDNOTES 1. At a 1998 Senate hearing, then-HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo acknowledged that the department “faced a competence gap” and had “the dubious distinction of being the only federal agency designated as ‘high risk’ by the General Accounting [now Government Accountability] Office (GAO),” even referencing the Section 8 rental subsidy as “on the brink of becoming the next savings and loan scandal,” and explained how the department was stepping up enforcement efforts “focused on closing the competence gap by eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse.” See “Testimony of Secretary Andrew Cuomo before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies,” March 25, 1998, https://archives.hud.gov/ testimony/1998/tst32598.cfm (accessed March 4, 2023). 2. H.R. 7984, Housing and Urban Development Act of 1965, Public Law No. 89-117, 89th Congress, August 10, 1965, https://www.congress.gov/89/statute/STATUTE-79/STATUTE-79-Pg451.pdf (accessed March 4, 2023). 3. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2023 Budget in Brief, pp. 2 and 7, https://www.hud.gov/ sites/dfiles/CFO/documents/2023_BudgetInBriefFINAL.pdf (accessed March 4, 2023). 4. For example, the Special Applications Center (SAC) located in Chicago, Illinois, was established in 1998 as a division of the Office of Public and Indian Housing to accept, review, and approve all nonfunded, noncompetitive applications and plans for demolition, disposition, and conversion of land subject to an annual contributions contract (ACC) in public housing. 5. The Secretary has delegated full authority for the Administration and enforcement of the Fair Housing Act to the Assistant Secretary of the Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity but also has delegated limited assignment and decision-making authority to the General Counsel. 6. Effectively the HUD Chief Operating Officer and appointed by the President with Senate advice and consent. 7. The Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) is an independent adjudicatory office within the Office of the Secretary. Led by a Director who is appointed by the Secretary, it supervises the Administrative Judges of the Office of Appeals, the administrative law judges of the Office of Administrative Law Judges, and the OHA support staff. The HUD Secretary appoints administrative judges and administrative law judges in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. Chapter 5, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/part-I/ chapter-5 (accessed March 4, 2023). 8. HUD currently has a Departmental Equity Assessment Working Group, supported with five FTEs funded by the OSDBU, “as part of the President’s Executive Order 13985, Executive Order On Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government.” See U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2023 Congressional Justifications, p. 35-15, https://www.hud.gov/sites/ dfiles/CFO/documents/2023HUDCongressionalJustificationsFINALelectronicversion.pdf (accessed March 4, 2023), and President Joseph R. Biden Jr., Executive Order 13985, “Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government,” January 20, 2021, in Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 14 (January 25, 2021), pp. 7009–7013, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2021-01-25/pdf/2021- 01753.pdf (accessed March 4, 2023). 9. Interestingly, “[t]he 2023 President’s Budget requests $748 thousand for CFBNP, which is $436 thousand less than the 2022 Annualized CR level. The Budget reflects total funding (carryover and new authority) of $1.2 million, $448 thousand less than 2022 total funding.” U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2023 Congressional Justifications, p. 35-16. 10. See H.R. 558, Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act, Public Law No. 100-77, 100th Congress, July 22, 1987, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-101/pdf/STATUTE-101-Pg482.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023). Later renamed the McKinney–Vento Homeless Assistance Act. 11. Established under the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, 42 U.S.C. §§ 5301 et seq., https:// www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42 (accessed March 4, 2023). 12. S. 566, Cranston–Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act, Public Law No. 101-625, 101st Congress, November 28, 1990, Title II, https://www.congress.gov/101/statute/STATUTE-104/STATUTE-104-Pg4079.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023). 13. S. 1, Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Public Law No. 91-646, 91st Congress, January 2, 1971, https://www.congress.gov/91/statute/STATUTE-84/STATUTE-84-Pg1894.pdf (accessed March 4, 2023). “The URA establishes the minimum Federal requirements for the acquisition of real property for Federally-funded programs and projects, and for the relocation of persons who must move from

Department of Housing and Urban Development

Weak
Vector: 65%
Pages: 548-550AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on energy efficiency and weatherization for low-income housing, while the Project 2025 HUD section emphasizes deregulation, reducing federal intervention in housing markets, opposing DEI/ESG initiatives, and reforming homelessness and rental assistance programs. There is minimal thematic overlap, as the bill does not address regulatory streamlining, foreign market interference, DEI/ESG critiques, or housing supply and zoning reforms highlighted in the policy."

Key themes:housing assistancelow-income households

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

Showing 3 of 5 policy matches

About These Correlations

Policy matches are calculated using a hybrid approach: initial candidates are found using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text, then an AI model (Llama 3.1 70B) provides detailed alignment ratings and analysis. Ratings range from 1 (minimal alignment) to 5 (very strong alignment). This analysis does not imply direct causation or intent.

Full Policy Text

Related Bills