Tennessee Valley Authority Salary Transparency Act

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/hr/144

Last Updated: September 7, 2026

Tennessee Valley Authority Salary Transparency Act

HR. 144, 119th Congress — read as touching Electric Utilities.

The sponsor

Rep. Cohen, Steve [D-TN-9]

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

The money

$57,404 raised

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

The alignment

55% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Department of Labor and Related Agencies" section, p. 633-635 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.

January 15, 2025

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 Tennessee Valley Authority Salary Transparency Act, HR 144, is a bill that ostensibly aims to increase transparency within the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) by requiring the disclosure of salaries for management-level employees and executives. However, as a visionary entrepreneur and strategic thinker, I see this legislation for what it truly is: a thinly veiled attempt to impose bureaucratic red tape on a successful organization.

1. **Main Purpose & Objectives**: The bill's primary objective is to amend the Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933, mandating the TVA to submit reports detailing the names, salaries, and duties of employees at the management level or above who earn more than the maximum rate of basic pay for grade GS-15. This is a classic example of government overreach, as it seeks to exert control over an organization that has thrived without such meddling.

2. **Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**: The bill modifies Section 9 of the Tennessee Valley Authority Act, introducing new reporting requirements and exemptions from disclosure under certain circumstances. These changes will inevitably lead to increased administrative burdens and compliance costs for the TVA, which could have a ripple effect on its operational efficiency.

3. **Affected Parties & Stakeholders**: The primary stakeholders affected by this bill are the TVA's management-level employees and executives, whose salaries will be subject to disclosure. However, the true impact will be felt by the organization as a whole, as well as its investors and partners. As a seasoned business leader, I can attest that such transparency measures often lead to talent retention issues and decreased competitiveness in the market.

4. **Potential Impact & Implications**: The potential implications of this bill are far-reaching and potentially detrimental to the TVA's success. By imposing additional reporting requirements, the government is essentially creating barriers to innovation and efficiency. This could lead to a decrease in the TVA's ability to attract top talent, ultimately affecting its bottom line. As someone who has built empires through strategic risk-taking and visionary leadership, I can confidently say that this bill is a step in the wrong direction. It's a prime example of how government intervention can stifle growth and hinder progress.

In conclusion, HR 144 is a misguided attempt to impose transparency on a successful organization. As a forward-thinking entrepreneur, I believe that such measures will only serve to hinder innovation and progress. The TVA should be allowed to operate with the freedom to make decisions that benefit its stakeholders, without the burden of excessive government oversight. By doing so, we can unlock true potential and drive growth, rather than being held back by bureaucratic red tape.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (billionaire personality)

As I taught you in 8th grade, the process of how a bill becomes a law is quite straightforward, yet it seems that many have forgotten this fundamental concept. The Tennessee Valley Authority Salary Transparency Act, HR 144, is a prime example of this process in action.

The main purpose and objective of this bill are to amend the Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933, requiring the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) to disclose the salaries of its management-level employees, including executives and board members, who earn above a certain threshold. This is a classic example of how Congress can use its legislative power to promote transparency and accountability, as we covered in our unit on checks and balances.

The key provisions of this bill include amending Section 9 of the Tennessee Valley Authority Act to require the TVA to submit a report containing the names, salaries, and duties of employees at or above the GS-15 pay grade. Remember when we learned about the importance of congressional oversight? This bill is a perfect illustration of how Congress can exercise its authority to ensure that government agencies are transparent in their operations.

The affected parties and stakeholders include the TVA, its employees, and the public. The TVA will need to comply with the new reporting requirements, while its employees may be impacted by the disclosure of their salaries. As we discussed in class, the public has a right to know how their tax dollars are being spent, and this bill aims to provide that information.

The potential impact and implications of this bill are significant. By increasing transparency, the TVA will be held more accountable for its spending and personnel decisions. This could lead to greater efficiency and better management within the organization. On a broader level, this bill reflects the ongoing debate about government transparency and accountability, which is a fundamental aspect of our system of government, as we explored in our unit on civic engagement.

In conclusion, HR 144 is a straightforward example of how Congress can use its legislative power to promote transparency and accountability. As I taught you, the process of how a bill becomes a law is designed to ensure that the voices of all stakeholders are heard, and this bill is no exception. By understanding the main purpose, key provisions, affected parties, and potential impact of this bill, we can better appreciate the importance of civic engagement and the role that citizens play in shaping our government.

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Cohen, Steve [D-TN-9]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$57,404

21 donors

PACs

$5,000

Organizations

Committees

Individuals

$52,404

SEIU COPE (SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION COMMITTEE ON POLITICAL EDUCATION)

2 transactions

$5,000

No organization contributions found

No committee contributions found

KEENEY, MIKE

1 transaction

$3,300

RITCHEY, JANICE C

1 transaction

$3,300

RITCHEY, KENT

1 transaction

$3,300

WALTON, CHRISTY

1 transaction

$3,300

KEENEY, MICHAEL

1 transaction

$3,300

SEGAL, GORDON

1 transaction

$3,300

SMITH, FREDERICK

1 transaction

$3,300

BEKTAS, MELIH

1 transaction

$3,000

DOGAN, GOKHAN

1 transaction

$3,000

MIMEHDI, MIKE

1 transaction

$2,504

GILLILAND, JAMES JR.

1 transaction

$2,500

RAOFI, BEHZAD

1 transaction

$2,500

BARNETT, BERT E

1 transaction

$2,500

BARNETT, CAROL

1 transaction

$2,500

ZEA, TRACY

1 transaction

$2,500

DADVAND, BABAK

1 transaction

$2,000

BELZ, RONALD

1 transaction

$1,800

FOGELMAN, HAL

1 transaction

$1,500

FINE, RICHARD

1 transaction

$1,500

ROBINSON, GILES

1 transaction

$1,500

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 1 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

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

ID: B001309

Top Contributors

KUHLMAN, RUTHIE

IndividualKNOXVILLE, TN

$3,300

Sep 4, 2023

KUHLMAN, RUTHIE

IndividualKNOXVILLE, TN

$3,300

Sep 4, 2023

FUHRMAN, LINDSEY

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualSOUTH MIAMI, FL

$3,300

Jul 26, 2023

FUHRMAN, SCOTT

BISCAYNE GLOBAL MANAGEMENT • CHAIRMAN

IndividualSOUTH MIAMI, FL

$3,300

Jul 26, 2023

KUHLMAN, RUTHIE

OLD GRAY CEMETERY • EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

IndividualKNOXVILLE, TN

$3,300

Jul 29, 2023

KUHLMAN, RUTHIE

OLD GRAY CEMETERY • EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

IndividualKNOXVILLE, TN

$3,300

Jul 29, 2023

STOWERS, HARRY

STOWERS MACHINERY CORPORATION • EXECUTIVE

IndividualKNOXVILLE, TN

$3,300

Jul 25, 2023

STOWERS, HARRY

STOWERS MACHINERY CORPORATION • EXECUTIVE

IndividualKNOXVILLE, TN

$3,300

Jul 25, 2023

HUFFAKER, RAY F

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualPOWELL, TN

$3,300

Oct 29, 2024

COOLEY, WILLIAM

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualWEST PALM BEACH, FL

$3,300

Oct 26, 2023

Donor Network - Rep. Cohen, Steve [D-TN-9]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

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

Showing 43 nodes and 48 connections

Total contributions: $48

Top Donors - Rep. Cohen, Steve [D-TN-9]

Showing top 21 donors by contribution amount

1 PAC20 Individuals

Industry Impact

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

+Electric Utilitiesconfidence 0.80
Section 2 amends the Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933 to require salary disclosure for management-level employees, which may increase transparency but does not impose significant costs on the industry; the TVA is a federally owned electric utility, suggesting a potential benefit (subsection (a))

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 Labor and Related Agencies

Weak

Vector: 62%

Pages: 633-635AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"Both HR 144 and the Project 2025 labor section emphasize transparency through mandated reporting, but HR 144 deals with TVA employee salaries while Project 2025 focuses on union financial disclosures and labor‑rights enforcement, resulting only a tangential connection."

Key themes:transparencyreporting requirementsaccountability

— 600 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise of state or local employees are exempt from this filing requirement. These dis- closure requirements help workers and the public understand how union leaders are raising and spending union dues; they also can serve as a vital source of infor- mation that helps workers decide if the unions they are asked to join are good stewards of the funds they collect. DOL, under both George W. Bush and Donald Trump, tried rulemakings (known as the Intermediate Bodies Rule) that would require some government unions to file the same information that is required of private-sector unions. Under President Trump, OLMS required unions to disclose involvement in trusts that they either own a majority stake in or control. In the past, union trust spending has been hidden, and it appears that trust assets have occasionally been corruptly spent for the benefit of private interests in union leadership— such as $30,000 spent on a private party, $37,500 spent on a Montblanc pen, condominiums for those in power, golf outings, and a Ferrari.20 But the Biden DOL eliminated a transparency rule requiring the filing of the T-1 Trust Annual Report. More generally, OLMS, which is charged with enforcing the law of union dis- closure, has historically been underfunded when compared to other DOL agencies. This relative lack of funding has made ensuring disclosure more difficult. l Enact transparency rules. The substance of the Intermediate Bodies Rule should pass into law, either through rulemaking or through legislation. The T-1 Trust Annual Report annual filing requirement should be restored. l Increase funding levels. Congress should expand the funding of the Office of Labor-Management Standards. Duty of Fair Representation. Unions have a duty of fair representation to their members, yet they too often abuse that duty to use their members’ resources on left-wing culture-war issues that are unrelated, and in fact often harmful, to union members’ own interests. l The NLRB should take enforcement or amicus action advancing the position that political conflicts of interest by union leadership can support claims for breach of the duty of fair representation in a manner analogous to financial conflicts of interest and analogous to breaches of the fiduciary duty of loyalty in other areas of law. Interpreting “Protected Concerted Activity.” In an effort to prevent employers from retaliating against workers who express a desire to unionize, cer- tain activities are deemed “protected concerted activity” (under §7 of the NLRA). — 601 — Department of Labor and Related Agencies The NLRB has issued extreme interpretations of these activities, such as deter- mining that a business’s requiring its employees to be courteous to customers and one another is an unlawful infringement on the free speech rights implicit in the protected concerted activity protections in the NLRA. l Reverse unreasonable interpretations of “protected concerted activity.” The NLRB should return to the 2019 Alstate Maintenance interpretation of what does and does not constitute protected concerted activity, including listing eight instances of lawful actions by employers. Injunctive Relief and Worker Organizing Activities. Within the confines of the more reasonable definition of protected concerted activity described above, the NLRB should increase its pursuit of reinstatement injunctions. Firing work- ers engaged in concerted activity has an immediate chilling effect on organizing, but remedies under the NLRA typically come only much later and amount only to backpay. In NLRA section 10(j), Congress empowered the NLRB to obtain temporary injunctions that immediately reinstate workers to their jobs in these circumstances. This provides a more meaningful remedy to the worker and creates a significant deterrent to unfair labor practices, because prompt reinstatement will tend to reinforce the legitimacy of the organizing effort. The NLRB overwhelmingly prevails when pursuing an injunction, succeeding 100 percent of the time in 2020 and 91 percent of the time in 2021. l Increase the use of 10(j) injunctive relief. The NLRB should increase its use of 10(j) and should articulate guidelines for situations in which it intends to seek injunctive relief; the board should delegate authority to pursue such injunctions to the general counsel and the general counsel should establish a policy of considering them expeditiously in all retaliation cases identified by regional offices. Dues-Funded Worker Centers. Under current law, both labor unions and unionized employers must file financial disclosures with DOL on an annual basis to ward off potential fraud and corruption of the sort that has been seen recently within the United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW). However, worker centers, which have grown in number and influ- ence enormously over the past decade, are not required to file these disclosures. l Investigate worker centers and require financial disclosures. DOL should investigate worker centers that look and act like unions and bring enforcement actions to require them to file the same financial disclosures.

Department of Veterans Affairs

Weak

Vector: 59%

Pages: 682-684AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"Both the bill and the Project 2025 VA section emphasize government accountability and transparency, but they target different agencies (TVA vs. VA) and address distinct policy areas (salary disclosure vs. VA IT, human capital, and claims processing reforms)."

Key themes:transparencyaccountabilityhuman capital managementreporting requirements

— 650 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Toxins, has led to historic increases in mandatory VBA spending in recent years. The VA has a time-phased plan to reassess the VASRD and its ratings for com- pensation, but this internal process can be slow and laborious, requires Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approvals, and can become politically charged both in Congress and with VSOs. l The next Administration should explore how VASRD reviews could be accelerated with clearance from OMB to target significant cost savings from revising disability rating awards for future claimants while preserving them fully or partially for existing claimants. l The VBA’s Information Technology top-line budget should be reexamined and reassessed in light of the need for expanded automation across the enterprise. l Traditionally, VHA captures the large majority of VA IT funding. The VBA needs to make the case for a larger IT budget with clear requirements to support that request. Personnel l Pursue reforms of the Human Capital Management process and operations within the VBA to build a more blended workforce with more contractors to process claims. This would free federal employees to perform other duties and be involved solely with the final decision to award benefits. l Improve the VBA acquisition workforce. The VBA needs more world-class contractor support. Currently, few of the top companies have contracts with the VBA, and the VBA needs to conduct more outreach to the private sector through senior leader engagement and industry conferences. l To identify more effective and efficient ways to complete claims, establish a knowledge exchange program with top-tier private-sector companies that do similar work. The VBA is fundamentally a financial services organization. A significant amount of its work has a private-sector analogue that could be leveraged to improve service to veterans. l For most of its existence, the VBA has been a risk-averse, insular, paper-based organization, implementing technology only over the past decade. This insularity has led to a predominantly “build it ourselves” approach, partly because VBA staff has limited experience or insight into current private- sector tools and methods and partly because the VBA struggles to compete — 651 — Department of Veterans Affairs with the VHA for IT funding. Senior executive leadership needs more innovators and trail blazers—qualities that have sometimes been lacking in the VBA’s senior ranks. Recruiting a more relevantly knowledgeable and technologically savvy team, along with robust political control of the VA, could bring about better solutions to the VBA’s workflow challenges. HUMAN RESOURCES AND ADMINISTRATION (HRA) Needed Reforms l Rescind all delegations of authority promulgated by the VA under the prior Administration. l Transfer all career SES out of PA/PAS-designated positions on the first day and ensure political control of the VA. l Take a close and analytically critical look at where hybrid and remote work is a net positive as a functional necessity and where in-person collaboration and presence will help to instill a strong work ethic and a more cohesive environment for productivity from the Office of the Secretary across the headquarters enterprise. The COVID-19 pandemic spurred a significant shift to hybrid and telework options for large segments of the staff in the Washington headquarters, in its sat- ellites, and at some VBA Regional Offices. The “remote work” expectation has been amplified and formalized within the Biden Administration team at VA to the extent that the current Secretary, Deputy Secretary, and their staffs are not “in office” as a matter of a routine presence while VA staff in Washington, D.C., have limited in-person meetings, relying more frequently on video conference calls. The short-term and long-term effects of this policy on the department are unknown, but generally, the policy may be undermining the cohesiveness and competencies of some staff functions and diluting general organizational accountability and responsiveness. Budget l Expedite the acquisition of a new Human Resources Information Technology (HRIT) system. The current system is not user-friendly; has minimal fusion, middle-ware capacity; and is not conducive to data driven personnel decisions. Personnel data needs to be organized and managed to its full potential. The HRIT system, associated databases, and other “shadow” personnel systems have no shortage of data; the problem comes with effective management of the data.

Department of Labor and Related Agencies

Weak

Vector: 59%

Pages: 633-635AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"Both HR 144 and the Project 2025 labor policy emphasize transparency through mandatory reporting, but HR 144 deals with TVA employee salary disclosure while the policy focuses on union financial disclosure, OLMS funding, and duty of fair representation—resulting only in a tangential thematic overlap."

Key themes:transparencyreporting requirementsaccountability

Department of Housing and Urban Development

Weak

Vector: 59%

Pages: 545-547AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 144 focuses on salary transparency for the Tennessee Valley Authority, while the Project 2025 HUD section emphasizes reforming HUD to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse and improve competence. The only shared theme is a general interest in transparency and accountability, but the subjects and specific objectives are unrelated."

Key themes:transparencyaccountabilitywaste reduction

— 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 Veterans Affairs

Minimal

Vector: 58%

Pages: 682-684AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on salary transparency for TVA employees, while the Project 2025 policy addresses improving disability claims processing, automation, and contractor use within the VA. There is no thematic or policy overlap between the two."

— 649 — Department of Veterans Affairs approaches and technology tools that currently exist in the private sector could be employed to improve existing VBA activities. This problem is most pronounced in the disability claims process, which needs more and better management attention focused on streamlining the procedures involved in processing claims and administering benefits. The VA must improve timeliness of claim adjudication and benefits delivery: Veterans want the VBA to provide timely responses to requests for benefits support, render empathetic customer service and understandable explanations of those benefits, and deliver those benefits without frustrating delays (weeks, not months). l Identify performance targets for benefits, report publicly on actual performance each quarter, and use these metrics to drive consistent improvement. l Develop a new pilot “Express 30” commitment for a veteran’s first fully developed disability compensation claim and organize the VBA to complete the first claim in 30 days. l Hire more private companies to perform disability medical examinations. Delays in completing the examinations could be eliminated with more external capacity. l Increase automation. Hiring additional staff to process claims is costly, is inflexible, and has yielded mixed results. Attempting to change laws and regulations simply to adjudicate claims would be a herculean effort given their complexity. The best way to provide benefits faster and more accurately is by using technology to perform most of the work. Technology currently exists in the private sector, but the VBA lacks the expertise to use it. This would be more of an organizational challenge than a technology hurdle. l Reduce improper payment and fraud. About $500 million is improperly paid out each year. Better tools, training, and management could reduce this substantially, but rule changes at the departmental level would be needed. Budget The VA’s Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD) has assigned disability ratings to a growing number of health conditions over time; some are tenuously related or wholly unrelated to military service. The further growth in presumptive service-connected medical conditions pursued by Congress and Veteran Service Organizations, begun with Agent Orange and most recently for Burn Pits/Airborne — 650 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Toxins, has led to historic increases in mandatory VBA spending in recent years. The VA has a time-phased plan to reassess the VASRD and its ratings for com- pensation, but this internal process can be slow and laborious, requires Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approvals, and can become politically charged both in Congress and with VSOs. l The next Administration should explore how VASRD reviews could be accelerated with clearance from OMB to target significant cost savings from revising disability rating awards for future claimants while preserving them fully or partially for existing claimants. l The VBA’s Information Technology top-line budget should be reexamined and reassessed in light of the need for expanded automation across the enterprise. l Traditionally, VHA captures the large majority of VA IT funding. The VBA needs to make the case for a larger IT budget with clear requirements to support that request. Personnel l Pursue reforms of the Human Capital Management process and operations within the VBA to build a more blended workforce with more contractors to process claims. This would free federal employees to perform other duties and be involved solely with the final decision to award benefits. l Improve the VBA acquisition workforce. The VBA needs more world-class contractor support. Currently, few of the top companies have contracts with the VBA, and the VBA needs to conduct more outreach to the private sector through senior leader engagement and industry conferences. l To identify more effective and efficient ways to complete claims, establish a knowledge exchange program with top-tier private-sector companies that do similar work. The VBA is fundamentally a financial services organization. A significant amount of its work has a private-sector analogue that could be leveraged to improve service to veterans. l For most of its existence, the VBA has been a risk-averse, insular, paper-based organization, implementing technology only over the past decade. This insularity has led to a predominantly “build it ourselves” approach, partly because VBA staff has limited experience or insight into current private- sector tools and methods and partly because the VBA struggles to compete

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. Cohen, Steve

To amend the Public Health Service Act to reauthorize the Stop, Observe, Ask, and Respond to Health and Wellness Training Program.

119/hr/1669

Fort Pillow National Battlefield Park Study Act

119/hr/926

Back to All Bills

Tennessee Valley Authority Salary Transparency Act