Enhancing Stakeholder Support and Outreach for Preparedness Grants Act

Download PDF
Bill ID: 119/hr/4058
Last Updated: July 12, 2026

Sponsored by

Rep. Goldman, Daniel S. [D-NY-10]

ID: G000599

Follow the money

The bill

Enhancing Stakeholder Support and Outreach for Preparedness Grants Act

HR. 4058, 119th Congress — read as touching Cybersecurity.

The sponsor

Rep. Goldman, Daniel S. [D-NY-10]

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

The money

$77,500 raised

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

The alignment

70% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Department of Homeland Security" section, p. 186-188 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 Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.

November 19, 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

Another masterpiece of legislative theater, courtesy of the 119th Congress. Let's dissect this farce, shall we?

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The Enhancing Stakeholder Support and Outreach for Preparedness Grants Act (HR 4058) claims to improve outreach efforts for two grant programs under the Department of Homeland Security: the Urban Area Security Initiative and the State Homeland Security Grant Program. The bill's sponsors, Mr. Goldman and Mr. Thompson, must have thought they were being clever by using words like "stakeholder" and "outreach." How quaint.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill adds new subsections to sections 2003 and 2004 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, requiring the Administrator to provide ongoing stakeholder outreach, engagement, education, technical assistance, and support. This includes conducting annual surveys to collect feedback from state, local, tribal, and territorial stakeholders. Oh, joy! More bureaucratic busywork.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects are affected: state, local, tribal, and territorial governments; the Department of Homeland Security; and, of course, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). But let's not forget the real stakeholders – the lobbyists and special interest groups who will inevitably benefit from this bill.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a classic case of "legislative placebo." It creates the illusion of action while doing nothing to address the underlying issues. The added bureaucracy will only serve to further entrench the existing power structures, ensuring that the same old interests continue to receive funding and support. Meanwhile, the actual effectiveness of these grant programs will remain unchanged.

In medical terms, this bill is akin to prescribing a patient a sugar pill while ignoring the underlying disease. It's a Band-Aid on a bullet wound. The real disease here is the corrupting influence of special interest groups and the lack of accountability within government agencies.

Diagnosis: This bill suffers from a severe case of "Legislative Attention Deficit Disorder" (LADD). Symptoms include:

* A complete lack of meaningful reform * Excessive use of buzzwords like "stakeholder" and "outreach" * Failure to address underlying issues * Increased bureaucracy

Treatment: Apply a healthy dose of skepticism, followed by a strong dose of reality. Recognize that this bill is nothing more than a smokescreen designed to obscure the real problems plaguing our government agencies.

Prognosis: Poor. This bill will likely pass with flying colors, and the public will be none the wiser. The disease of LADD will continue to spread, infecting future legislation and ensuring that meaningful reform remains an elusive dream.

Related Topics

State & Local Government AffairsForeign Aid & Diplomacy
Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Goldman, Daniel S. [D-NY-10]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions
$77,500
14 donors
PACs
$0
Organizations
$1,500
Committees
$0
Individuals
$76,000

No PAC contributions found

1
BARONA BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
1 transaction
$1,500

No committee contributions found

1
GOLDSTEIN, DARIN
2 transactions
$13,200
2
SCHWARTZ, DAVID
2 transactions
$10,000
3
ADAMS, RICHARD
2 transactions
$6,600
4
BARTH, RICHARD
2 transactions
$6,600
5
BLUMENTHAL, VIOLETTE
2 transactions
$6,600
6
BRUNO, JACQUELINE
2 transactions
$6,600
7
BEAL, BRUCE
2 transactions
$6,600
8
ANDREESSEN, MARC
1 transaction
$3,300
9
DIXON, CHRISTOPHER
1 transaction
$3,300
10
HOROWITZ, BEN
1 transaction
$3,300
11
OCH, DANIEL
1 transaction
$3,300
12
OCH, JANE
1 transaction
$3,300
13
ADELSTEIN, MARTIN
1 transaction
$3,300

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 3 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Rep. Thompson, Bennie G. [D-MS-2]

ID: T000193

Top Contributors

10

1
LA, TUNICA-BILOXI TRIBE
N/A • N/A
IndividualMARKSVILLE, LA
$5,000
Feb 7, 2024
2
DINKLER, AYAME MS.
CRANE STRATEGIC, LLC • OWNER
IndividualNEW ORLEANS, LA
$3,300
Nov 1, 2024
3
REEVES, JAMES
SELF • ATTORNEY
IndividualBILOXI, MS
$3,300
Nov 1, 2024
4
WISMEIER, MOLLY
RESTAURANT R'EVOLUTION • DIRECTOR OF WINE AND SPIRITS
IndividualNEW ORLEANS, LA
$3,300
Nov 1, 2024
5
STAFFORD, MARK MR.
DRC EMERGENCY SERVICES • CHIEF OF OPERATIONS
IndividualBALA CYNWYD, PA
$3,300
Nov 1, 2024
6
ASHY, ALTON MR.
ADVANCED STRATEGIES • PRESIDENT
IndividualBATON ROUGE, LA
$3,300
Oct 25, 2024
7
LA, TUNICA-BILOXI TRIBE
N/A • N/A
IndividualMARKSVILLE, LA
$3,300
Dec 27, 2023
8
INDIANS, AGUA CALIENTE BAND O
NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualPALM SPRINGS, CA
$3,300
Dec 27, 2023
9
LAMPTON, WILLIAM
ERGON, INC. • VP PUBLIC AFFAIRS & GOVERNMENT RELATIO
IndividualJACKSON, MS
$3,300
Oct 27, 2023
10
WALTON, JAMES
SELF • WALTON ENTERPRISES
IndividualBENTONVILLE, AR
$3,300
Feb 7, 2024

Rescom. Hernández, Pablo Jose [D-PR-At Large]

ID: H001103

Top Contributors

0

No contribution data available

Rep. Green, Mark E. [R-TN-7]

ID: G000590

Top Contributors

10

1
HAND, J.R.
HAND FAMILY COMPANIES • CEO
IndividualCLARKSVILLE, TN
$6,600
May 20, 2024
2
SCARLETT, DOROTHY
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualNASHVILLE, TN
$6,600
Jun 11, 2024
3
CRABBE, JENNELL
HOMEMAKER • HOMEMAKER
IndividualCLARKSVILLE, TN
$6,600
Feb 9, 2023
4
CRABBE, JOHN
SELF • CONSTRUCTION
IndividualCLARKSVILLE, TN
$6,600
Feb 9, 2023
5
EVANS, BARBARA
HOMEMAKER • HOMEMAKER
IndividualHENDERSONVILLE, TN
$6,600
Mar 10, 2023
6
EVANS, JOHN
PRESIDENT • PRESIDENT
IndividualHENDERSONVILLE, TN
$6,600
Mar 10, 2023
7
KEMMERER, KAREN
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualJACKSON, WY
$6,600
May 16, 2023
8
GONTOWNIK, YONI
GIC • VICE PRESIDENT
IndividualENGLEWOOD, NJ
$6,600
Aug 1, 2024
9
SCARLETT, JOE
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualNASHVILLE, TN
$6,600
Sep 9, 2024
10
UIHLEIN, RICHARD
ULINE • CHAIRMAN
IndividualLAKE FOREST, IL
$5,800
Jan 26, 2023

Donor Network - Rep. Goldman, Daniel S. [D-NY-10]

PACs
Organizations
Individuals
Politicians

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

Loading...

Showing 56 nodes and 27 connections (60 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $108,900

Top Donors - Rep. Goldman, Daniel S. [D-NY-10]

Showing top 14 donors by contribution amount

1 Org13 Individuals

Industry Impact

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

  • +Cybersecurityconfidence 0.80

    Section 2(a) and (b) mention outreach and technical assistance for the Urban Area Security Initiative and State Homeland Security Grant Program, which could benefit cybersecurity companies providing security solutions and services to these programs.

Who funds the sponsor on these industries

For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Rep. Goldman, Daniel S. [D-NY-10])received from donors associated with that industry during the 2022–present cycles. Donations are not proof of intent — they are a record of who funds the people writing the law.

Industries this bill HELPS

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 Homeland Security

Moderate
Vector: 67%
Pages: 186-188AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill seeks to improve FEMA's outreach and feedback mechanisms for grant programs, which aligns with Project 2025's goal of strengthening state and local preparedness and shifting more responsibility to non-federal entities, though it does not directly implement the specific fiscal or structural reforms proposed."

Key themes:FEMA grant programsstate/local preparednessstakeholder engagementfederalismdisaster response

— 153 — Department of Homeland Security l 287(g) program. Issue a memo prohibiting any jurisdiction that applies from being denied access to the program unless good cause is shown. l Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) priorities. Issue Department Management Directive (and ICE companion Directive) to refocus HSI on immigration offenses and criminal offenses typically associated with immigration (for example, human trafficking). All criminal investigative work without a clear nexus to the border or otherwise to Title 8 should be turned over to the appropriate federal agency. l Blackie’s Warrants. ICE OPLA, ERO, and HSI should issue a joint internal memo on operationalizing Blackie’s Warrants for immediate use on worksite enforcement and other appropriate investigations and operations. FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY (FEMA) Needed Reforms FEMA is the lead federal agency in preparing for and responding to disasters, but it is overtasked, overcompensates for the lack of state and local preparedness and response, and is regularly in deep debt. After passage of the 1988 Stafford Act,12 the number of declared federal disasters rose dramatically as most disaster costs were shifted from states and local governments to the federal government. In addition, state-friendly FEMA regulations, such as a “per capita indicator,” failed to maintain the pace of inflation and made it easy to meet disaster declaration thresholds. This combination has left FEMA unprepared in both readiness and funding for the truly catastrophic disasters in which its services are most needed. Reform of FEMA requires a greater emphasis on federalism and state and local preparedness, leaving FEMA to focus on large, widespread disasters. Under the Stafford Act, FEMA has the authority to adjust the per capita indi- cator for damages, which creates a threshold under which states and localities are not eligible for public assistance. FEMA should raise the threshold because the per capita indicator has not kept pace with inflation, and this over time has effectively lowered the threshold for public assistance and caused FEMA’s resources to be stretched perilously thin. Alternatively, applying a deductible could accomplish a similar outcome while also incentivizing states to take a more proactive role in their own preparedness and response capabilities. In addition, Congress should change the cost-share arrangement so that the federal government covers 25 per- cent of the costs for small disasters with the cost share reaching a maximum of 75 percent for truly catastrophic disasters. FEMA is also responsible for the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), nearly all of which is issued by the federal government. Washington provides

Department of Homeland Security

Weak
Vector: 68%
Pages: 186-188AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on improving stakeholder engagement and feedback mechanisms for FEMA grant programs, while Project 2025's FEMA section emphasizes reducing federal involvement in grants, raising disaster declaration thresholds, winding down NFIP, and limiting federal cost-sharing—objectives that are largely contrary to the bill's intent to enhance grant outreach and administration."

Key themes:FEMAgrant programsstate and local preparednessfederal assistance

— 153 — Department of Homeland Security l 287(g) program. Issue a memo prohibiting any jurisdiction that applies from being denied access to the program unless good cause is shown. l Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) priorities. Issue Department Management Directive (and ICE companion Directive) to refocus HSI on immigration offenses and criminal offenses typically associated with immigration (for example, human trafficking). All criminal investigative work without a clear nexus to the border or otherwise to Title 8 should be turned over to the appropriate federal agency. l Blackie’s Warrants. ICE OPLA, ERO, and HSI should issue a joint internal memo on operationalizing Blackie’s Warrants for immediate use on worksite enforcement and other appropriate investigations and operations. FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY (FEMA) Needed Reforms FEMA is the lead federal agency in preparing for and responding to disasters, but it is overtasked, overcompensates for the lack of state and local preparedness and response, and is regularly in deep debt. After passage of the 1988 Stafford Act,12 the number of declared federal disasters rose dramatically as most disaster costs were shifted from states and local governments to the federal government. In addition, state-friendly FEMA regulations, such as a “per capita indicator,” failed to maintain the pace of inflation and made it easy to meet disaster declaration thresholds. This combination has left FEMA unprepared in both readiness and funding for the truly catastrophic disasters in which its services are most needed. Reform of FEMA requires a greater emphasis on federalism and state and local preparedness, leaving FEMA to focus on large, widespread disasters. Under the Stafford Act, FEMA has the authority to adjust the per capita indi- cator for damages, which creates a threshold under which states and localities are not eligible for public assistance. FEMA should raise the threshold because the per capita indicator has not kept pace with inflation, and this over time has effectively lowered the threshold for public assistance and caused FEMA’s resources to be stretched perilously thin. Alternatively, applying a deductible could accomplish a similar outcome while also incentivizing states to take a more proactive role in their own preparedness and response capabilities. In addition, Congress should change the cost-share arrangement so that the federal government covers 25 per- cent of the costs for small disasters with the cost share reaching a maximum of 75 percent for truly catastrophic disasters. FEMA is also responsible for the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), nearly all of which is issued by the federal government. Washington provides — 154 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise insurance at prices lower than the actuarially fair rate, thereby subsidizing flood insurance. Then, when flood costs exceed NFIP’s revenue, FEMA seeks taxpay- er-funded bailouts. Current NFIP debt is $20.5 billion, and in 2017, Congress canceled $16 billion in debt when FEMA reached its borrowing authority limit. These subsidies and bailouts only encourage more development in flood zones, increasing the potential losses to both NFIP and the taxpayer. The NFIP should be wound down and replaced with private insurance starting with the least risky areas currently identified by the program. Budget Issues FEMA manages all grants for DHS, and these grants have become pork for states, localities, and special-interest groups. Since 2002, DHS/FEMA have provided more than $56 billion in preparedness grants for state, local, tribal, and territorial governments. For FY 2023, President Biden requested more than $3.5 billion for federal assistance grants.13 Funds provided under these programs do not provide measurable gains for preparedness or resiliency. Rather, more than any objective needs, political interests appear to direct the flow of nondisaster funds. The principles of federalism should be upheld; these indicate that states better understand their unique needs and should bear the costs of their particularized programs. FEMA employees in Washington, D.C., should not determine how bil- lions of federal tax dollars should be awarded to train local law enforcement officers in Texas, harden cybersecurity infrastructure in Utah, or supplement migrant shelters in Arizona. DHS should not be in the business of handing out federal tax dollars: These grants should be terminated. Accomplishing this, however, will require action by Members of Congress who repeatedly vote to fund grants for political reasons. The transition should focus on building resilience and return on investment in line with real threats. Personnel FEMA currently has four Senate-confirmed positions. Only the Administrator should be confirmed by the Senate; other political leadership need not be con- firmed by the Senate. Additionally, FEMA’s “springing Cabinet position” should be eliminated, as this creates significant unnecessary challenges to the functioning of the whole of DHS at points in time when coordinated responses are most needed. CYBERSECURITY AND INFRASTRUCTURE SECURITY AGENCY (CISA) Needed Reforms CISA is supposed to have two key roles: (1) protection of the federal civilian government networks (.gov) while coordinating the execution of national cyber defense and sharing information with non-federal and private-sector partners

Department of Housing and Urban Development

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

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on enhancing stakeholder outreach and feedback mechanisms for DHS/FEMA grant programs related to homeland security and preparedness, while the Project 2025 policy section addresses HUD reforms concerning housing markets, DEI/CRT/ESG initiatives, housing supply, and homelessness policy. There is no substantive thematic or policy overlap between the two."

— 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