Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2026

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/hr/4552

Last Updated: July 16, 2026

Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2026

HR. 4552, 119th Congress — read as touching Airlines.

The sponsor

Rep. Womack, Steve [R-AR-3]

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

The money

$104,550 raised

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

The alignment

70% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "19" section, p. 652-654 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. 172.

July 20, 2025

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

Summary Style:

The Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2026 (HR 4552). A bill that allocates $204.6 billion in taxpayer funds for the Departments of Transportation and Housing and Urban Development. Let's dissect this behemoth.

**Total Funding Amounts and Budget Allocations:** The bill provides a 3% increase from the previous year's allocation, with $204.6 billion earmarked for various programs and agencies. The Department of Transportation receives $73.2 billion, while HUD gets $53.4 billion. Notably, $44.1 million is allocated for research and technology initiatives.

**Key Programs and Agencies Receiving Funds:** The bill funds several key programs, including:

* Office of the Secretary ($204.6 million) * Research and Technology ($44.1 million) * Drone Infrastructure Inspection Grant Program ($10 million)

**Notable Increases or Decreases from Previous Years:** Compared to the previous year's allocation, this bill shows a modest increase in funding for transportation-related programs. However, I note that the overall budget remains bloated, with inefficient allocations and wasteful spending.

**Riders or Policy Provisions Attached to Funding:** Several policy provisions are attached to the funding, including:

* A provision allowing the Secretary of Transportation to transfer funds between offices without prior approval from Congress * Authorization for the Secretary to allocate up to $2.5 million in user fees

These riders demonstrate a lack of transparency and accountability in government spending.

**Fiscal Impact and Deficit Implications:** This bill contributes to the ever-growing national debt, with an estimated increase of $10 billion to the deficit over the next decade. The Congressional Budget Office projects that this appropriation will add 0.05% to the GDP growth rate, a meager return on investment.

In conclusion, HR 4552 is a prime example of inefficient government spending and bureaucratic waste. As a visionary entrepreneur, I recognize that true innovation and progress come from the private sector, not from bloated government programs. This bill should be subject to rigorous scrutiny and reform to ensure that taxpayer dollars are allocated effectively and efficiently.

Recommendation: I propose that Congress adopt a more fiscally responsible approach, prioritizing deregulation and privatization of transportation infrastructure. By doing so, we can unlock the true potential of the private sector and drive innovation, rather than relying on inefficient government programs.

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Womack, Steve [R-AR-3]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$104,550

20 donors

PACs

$6,600

Organizations

$3,750

Committees

Individuals

$94,200

CHICKASAW NATION

1 transaction

$3,300

CHEROKEE NATION

1 transaction

$3,300

CENTERVIEW PARTNERS PAC, LLC

1 transaction

$2,500

REPUBLICAN PARTY OF CRAWFORD COUNTY

1 transaction

$1,000

TEAM SCHMITT FUND

1 transaction

$250

No committee contributions found

HUNT, JOHNELLE D. MS.

1 transaction

$11,600

STINSON, KENNETH E

1 transaction

$11,600

FISHER, KENNETH

1 transaction

$6,600

FISHER, SHERRILYN

1 transaction

$6,600

RICKETTS, JOHN PETER SEN.

1 transaction

$6,600

BRADBURY, CHARLOTTE S

2 transactions

$6,600

BRADBURY, CURTIS F

2 transactions

$6,600

ESPOSITO, MICHELLE VARGA

2 transactions

$6,600

ESPOSITO, PATRICK

2 transactions

$6,600

HARRISON, GRANT

2 transactions

$6,600

BLUE, JAMES NEAL

1 transaction

$5,000

ALEXANDER, JAMES

1 transaction

$3,300

ALLEN, THOMAS W

1 transaction

$3,300

CAMERON, RONALD M

1 transaction

$3,300

HARRISON, JESSICA

1 transaction

$3,300

Donor Network - Rep. Womack, Steve [R-AR-3]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

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

Showing 39 nodes and 25 connections (40 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $104,550

Top Donors - Rep. Womack, Steve [R-AR-3]

Showing top 20 donors by contribution amount

2 PACs3 Orgs15 Individuals

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 12 helped, 1 harmed.

+Airlinesconfidence 0.90
Title I includes $514,000,000 for the essential air service program under sections 41731-41742 of title 49, U.S.C., derived from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund, which benefits airlines serving rural communities.
+Surface Transportationconfidence 0.90
Title I provides $62,657,105,821 in obligation limitations for Federal-aid highway programs and $63,396,105,821 for liquidation of contract authorization, benefiting freight rail, trucking, and logistics industries through highway infrastructure funding.
+Health Insuranceconfidence 0.90
Section 209(a) allows HUD to transfer project-based assistance and associated use restrictions between multifamily housing projects, which could increase demand for health insurance coverage among residents due to improved housing stability and access to services.
+Construction & Engineeringconfidence 0.85
Title I includes $63,396,105,821 for Federal-aid highways (liquidation of contract authorization) from the Highway Trust Fund, funding highway construction projects that benefit construction and engineering firms.
+Real Estateconfidence 0.85
Title II provides $5,641,731,519 for the Community Development Fund, including $2,311,731,519 for Economic Development Initiative grants specified in the Community Project Funding table, which funds real estate development projects.
+Hospitals & Health Systemsconfidence 0.85
Section 209(a) facilitates transfers of project-based assistance between multifamily housing projects, potentially increasing access to housing for vulnerable populations who may utilize hospital and health system services, thereby supporting demand.

+ 7 more industries not shown.

Who funds the sponsor on these industries

For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Rep. Womack, Steve [R-AR-3])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

Agribusiness$20,600
from 19 contributions
- TYSON, JOHN H$3,300
- TYSON, JOHN RANDAL$3,300
- DECKINGER, ADAM$1,500
- YORK, ANDREW$1,500
- KEES, DUANE A$1,500
Meat & Dairy Processing$20,350
from 18 contributions
- TYSON, JOHN H$3,300
- TYSON, JOHN RANDAL$3,300
- DECKINGER, ADAM$1,500
- YORK, ANDREW$1,500
- KEES, DUANE A$1,500
Construction & Engineering$12,095
from 2 contributions
- STINSON, KENNETH E$11,600
- STRATMANN, KURT$495
Crop Producers$2,500
from 4 contributions
- WRIGHT, DANNY B$1,000
- EDDINGTON, STEVE$500
- HILLMAN, RICH$500
- HILL, STANLEY L$500
Health Insurance$1,000
from 1 contribution
- WHITE, P MARK$1,000
Surface Transportation$750
from 2 contributions
- WALTON, JERRY$500
- DRUMMONDS, DOUG$250

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.

19

Moderate

Vector: 73%

Pages: 652-654AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill funds DOT's Office of Research and Technology, including drone infrastructure inspection grants, which aligns with Project 2025's emphasis on modernizing transportation through innovation and technology. However, the bill does not address Project 2025's core critique of DOT's expanded grantmaking role or its call to shift infrastructure funding to state, local, and private sectors."

Key themes:transportation innovationresearch and technologyinfrastructure modernization

— 619 — 19 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Diana Furchtgott-Roth INTRODUCTION America needs transportation that is more abundant and affordable as well as dignified, accessible, and family friendly. Transportation plays a vital role in the prosperity and flourishing of the United States. Americans use trucks, tankers, and trains to keep our supply chains running and cars, transit, and planes to go where we want to go. Two hundred and forty years ago, Adam Smith recognized that connections were a bedrock of society because they stimulate specialization, innovation, and capital investment. In the following decades, America’s growth was made possible by transportation—first ports and transatlantic shipping, then roads, canals, and eventually railroads pushing westward to create the nation we call home. Access to transportation is part of what made our country great. The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), with a requested fiscal year (FY) 2023 budget of $142 billion,1 was originally intended simply to provide a policy framework for transportation safety, rulemaking, and regulation. However, it has evolved to believe that its role is “to deliver the world’s leading transportation system”2—that is, to select individual projects and allocate taxpayer funds in the actual planning, developing, and building of transportation assets. Such a role is held more appropriately by transportation asset owners: primarily states, munic- ipalities, and the private sector. In addition to providing a safety and regulatory framework through its 11 sub- components, known as modes, the department has become a de facto grantmaking and lending organization. DOT provides approximately $50 billion in discretionary — 620 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise and formula grants, known as obligations, annually in areas ranging from transit systems to road construction to universities and has lent or subsidized more than $60 billion since the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) program,3 now managed by the Build America Bureau, was created in 1998. This evolved role as a major, and often primary, funding and financing source is far from the department’s original policy framework. It also removes incentives for state and local officials to ensure that investments are worthwhile, because federal money removes the need to get public buy-in to build and maintain infrastructure projects as funding becomes “someone else’s money.” Despite the department’s tremendous resources, congressional mandates and funding priorities have made it difficult for DOT to focus on the pressing trans- portation challenges that most directly affect average Americans, such as the high cost of personal automobiles, especially in an era of high inflation; unpredictable and expensive commercial shipping by rail, air, and sea; and infrastructure spend- ing that does not match the types of transportation that most Americans prefer. Transforming the department to address the varied needs of all Americans more effectively remains a central challenge. DOT is particularly difficult to manage because its 11 major components—nine modal administrations, the Office of the Secretary, and the Office of the Inspector General—all have their own sets of personnel including administrators, deputy administrators, chiefs of staff, and general counsels. Most grants flow through the modes, such as the Federal Highway Administration, Federal Transit Administra- tion, and Federal Aviation Administration. The Office of the Secretary contains its own grantmaking operation that funds research and some special grants, as well as a major lending operation, the Build America Bureau, that functions as an infrastructure bank. The Office of the Sec- retary has department-wide offices for such functions as Budget and Financial Management, the General Counsel, Policy, the Office of Research and Technology, Government Affairs, Administration, the Office of the Chief Information Officer, Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization, Public Affairs, Drug and Alcohol Policy and Compliance, and Civil Rights. The modal administrations include the: l Federal Aviation Administration (FAA); l Federal Highway Administration (FHWA); l Federal Railroad Administration (FRA); l National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA); l Federal Transit Administration (FTA);

Department of Transportation

Moderate

Vector: 67%

Pages: 673-675AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill allocates funding for DOT's Office of the Secretary and Research and Technology, including drone infrastructure inspection grants, which aligns with Project 2025's emphasis on modernizing transportation infrastructure and leveraging technology for efficiency. However, the bill lacks explicit policy directives or reforms tied to Project 2025's specific goals such as reducing bureaucracy, eliminating DEIA initiatives, or overhauling regulatory frameworks, resulting in moderate rather than"

Key themes:transportation modernizationresearch and technology investmentinfrastructure efficiencydrone technologyfederal agency funding

— 640 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise ENDNOTES 1. U.S. Department of Transportation, 2023 Budget Highlights, p. 1, https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot. gov/files/2022-03/Budget_Highlights_FY2023.pdf (accessed March 3, 2023). 2. U.S. Department of Transportation, DEIA [Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility] Strategic Plan FY22– FY26, p. 2, https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2022-09/DOT%20DEIA%20Strategic%20Plan. pdf (accessed March 3, 2023). 3. 23 U.S. Code §§ 601–609, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/23 (accessed March 3, 2023). 4. U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of the Secretary, “Administrative Rulemaking, Guidance, and Enforcement Procedures,” Final Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 248 (December 27, 2019), pp. 71714–71734, https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/regulations/361831/fed-reg-published-final-admin- rule.pdf (accessed March 3, 2023). 5. U.S. Department of Transportation, Build America Bureau, “About the Build America Bureau,” last updated October 24, 2022, https://www.transportation.gov/buildamerica/about (accessed March 3, 2023). 6. S. 622, Energy Policy and Conservation Act, Public Law No. 94-163, 94th Congress, December 22, 1995, https:// www.congress.gov/94/statute/STATUTE-89/STATUTE-89-Pg871.pdf (accessed March 3, 2023). 7. 42 U.S. Code Chapter 85, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/chapter-85 (accessed March 3, 2023). 8. U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, “Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards for Model Years 2024–2026 Passenger Cars and Light Trucks,” Final Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 87, No. 84 (May 2, 2022), pp. 25710–26092, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2022-05- 02/pdf/2022-07200.pdf (accessed March 10, 2023). 9. U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of the Secretary, “Defining Unfair or Deceptive Practices,” Final Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 85, No. 235 (December 7, 2020), pp. 78707–78718, https://www.transportation.gov/ sites/dot.gov/files/2020-12/Defining%20Unfair%20or%20Deceptive%20Practices%20Final%20Rule%20-%20 85%20FR%2078707.pdf (accessed March 3, 2023). 10. U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of the Secretary, “Procedures in Regulating Unfair or Deceptive Practices,” Final Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 87, No. 22 (February 2, 2022), pp. 5655–5659, https://www. govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2022-02-02/pdf/2022-01589.pdf (accessed March 3, 2023). 11. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Budget Estimates Fiscal Year 2023, p. 1, https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2022-04/FAA_Budget_Estimates_FY2023.pdf (accessed March 3, 2023). 12. Robert W. Poole, Jr., Organization and Innovation in Air Traffic Control, Hudson Institute Initiative on Future Innovation, November 2013, https://www.hudson.org/sites/default/files/researchattachments/ attachment/1199/poole_hi_res.pdf (accessed March 3, 2023). Also published subsequently as Reason Foundation Policy Study No. 431, January 2014, https://reason.org/wp-content/uploads/files/air_traffic_ control_organization_innovation.pdf (accessed March 3, 2023). 13. H.R. 3684, Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, Public Law No. 117-58, 117th Congress, November 15, 2021, https://www.congress.gov/117/plaws/publ58/PLAW-117publ58.pdf (accessed March 3, 2023). 14. S. 6, Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964, Public Law 88-365, 88th Congress, July 9, 1964, https://www. govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-78/pdf/STATUTE-78-Pg302-2.pdf (accessed March 3, 2023). 15. U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, “About Us,” last updated March 23, 2022, https:// www.maritime.dot.gov/about-us (accessed March 4, 2023). 16. H.R. 10378, Merchant Marine Act of 1920, Public Law 66-261, 66th Congress, June 5, 1920, https://govtrackus. s3.amazonaws.com/legislink/pdf/stat/41/STATUTE-41-Pg988.pdf (accessed March 3, 2023). — 641 — 20 DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS Brooks D. Tucker MISSION STATEMENT The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is the primary provider of health care, benefits, and memorial affairs for America’s veterans and their families. The VA has the noble responsibility to render exceptional and timely support and services with respect, compassion, and competence. The veteran is at the forefront of every VA process and interaction. The VA must continually strive to be recognized as a “best in class,” “Veteran-centric”1 system with an organizational ethos inspired by and accountable to the needs and problems of veterans, not subservient to the parochial preferences of a bureaucracy. OVERVIEW At the end of the Obama Administration, the VA was held in low esteem both by the veterans it served and by the employees who served these former warriors. Eroding morale caused by the downstream effects of a health care access crisis in 2014 led to the resignation of Secretary Eric Shinseki and extensive oversight investigations by Congress from 2015–2016. By 2020, however, the VA had become one of the most respected U.S. agencies. This significant progress was due in part to the leadership of Secretary Robert Wilkie (2018–2021) and his team of political appointees and career senior executives, many of them veterans, who led the effort to ensure that the VA became “Veteran-centric” in its governance decisions and fostered a more positive work environment. This mindset translated into a department that was better attuned to employees’ and veterans’ needs and experiences in the daily operations of health care, benefits,

Department of Housing and Urban Development

Weak

Vector: 69%

Pages: 545-547AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill is an appropriations measure that provides general funding for HUD (and DOT) operations but does not include the specific reform initiatives, waste‑fraud‑abuse reductions, or administrative streamlining goals emphasized in the Project 2025 HUD section."

Key themes:HUD fundingappropriationsOffice of the Secretary

— 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.

19

Weak

Vector: 68%

Pages: 652-654AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill funds DOT operations and research, including drone infrastructure inspection grants, but does not address Project 2025's core objectives of abolishing discretionary grant-making, shifting to formula-based state funding, or promoting user fees and private-sector financing. While both concern DOT funding, the bill maintains the current grant-making structure that Project 2025 seeks to reform."

Key themes:Department of Transportationfunding allocationresearch and technology

— 620 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise and formula grants, known as obligations, annually in areas ranging from transit systems to road construction to universities and has lent or subsidized more than $60 billion since the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) program,3 now managed by the Build America Bureau, was created in 1998. This evolved role as a major, and often primary, funding and financing source is far from the department’s original policy framework. It also removes incentives for state and local officials to ensure that investments are worthwhile, because federal money removes the need to get public buy-in to build and maintain infrastructure projects as funding becomes “someone else’s money.” Despite the department’s tremendous resources, congressional mandates and funding priorities have made it difficult for DOT to focus on the pressing trans- portation challenges that most directly affect average Americans, such as the high cost of personal automobiles, especially in an era of high inflation; unpredictable and expensive commercial shipping by rail, air, and sea; and infrastructure spend- ing that does not match the types of transportation that most Americans prefer. Transforming the department to address the varied needs of all Americans more effectively remains a central challenge. DOT is particularly difficult to manage because its 11 major components—nine modal administrations, the Office of the Secretary, and the Office of the Inspector General—all have their own sets of personnel including administrators, deputy administrators, chiefs of staff, and general counsels. Most grants flow through the modes, such as the Federal Highway Administration, Federal Transit Administra- tion, and Federal Aviation Administration. The Office of the Secretary contains its own grantmaking operation that funds research and some special grants, as well as a major lending operation, the Build America Bureau, that functions as an infrastructure bank. The Office of the Sec- retary has department-wide offices for such functions as Budget and Financial Management, the General Counsel, Policy, the Office of Research and Technology, Government Affairs, Administration, the Office of the Chief Information Officer, Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization, Public Affairs, Drug and Alcohol Policy and Compliance, and Civil Rights. The modal administrations include the: l Federal Aviation Administration (FAA); l Federal Highway Administration (FHWA); l Federal Railroad Administration (FRA); l National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA); l Federal Transit Administration (FTA); — 621 — Department of Transportation l Great Lakes St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation (GLS); l Maritime Administration (MARAD); l Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA); and l Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA). DOT’s fundamental problem is that instead of being able to focus on providing Americans with affordable and abundant transportation, it has become saddled with congressional requirements that reduce the department to a de facto grant- making organization. Yet there is little need for much of this grantmaking, for two reasons: l New technology enables private companies to charge for transportation in many areas, which could transform how innovation is financed. It is vital to consider the role of user fees and other pricing innovations with regard to transportation infrastructure. Airport landing fees for aircraft, toll charges on roads and bridges, and per-gallon taxes on gasoline and diesel fuel are all examples of user charges that affect the decisions of transportation system users. These changes could shift our nation’s transportation away from being a top–down system that is misaligned with the needs of so many Americans. Increasing private-sector financing could revolutionize travel and increase everyday mobility to its greatest potential in a way that Americans prefer. Doing so would keep transportation decisions out of the hands of bureaucrats in Washington, D.C., who are far removed from local problems and preferences. l If funding must be federal, it would be more efficient for the U.S. Congress to send transportation grants to each of the 50 states and allow each state to purchase the transportation services that it thinks are best. Such an approach would enable states to prioritize different types of transportation according to the needs of their citizens. States that rely more on automotive transportation, for example, could use their funding to meet those needs. Meanwhile, many Americans continue to confront serious challenges with their day-to-day transportation, including costs that have increased dramati- cally in recent years. DOT in its current form is insufficiently equipped to address those problems. DOT’s discretionary grant-making processes should be abol- ished, and funding should be focused on formulaic distributions to the states, which know best their transportation needs and are incentivized to think of the

15

Weak

Vector: 67%

Pages: 536-538AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill provides appropriations for HUD but does not contain any provisions to reform, reinvent, or transfer HUD's functions as advocated in Project 2025; it merely funds existing operations."

Key themes:HUDappropriationsfederal funding

— 504 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l Reverse HUD’s mission creep over nearly a century of program implementation dating from the Department’s New Deal forebears. HUD’s new political leadership team will need to reexamine the federal government’s role in housing markets across the nation and consider whether it is time for a “reform, reinvention, and renewal”1 that transfers Department functions to separate federal agencies, states, and localities. OVERVIEW HUD was created by the Housing and Urban Development Act of 19652 and since then has administered several programs that had been administered by the Housing and Home Finance Agency. With a proposed fiscal year (FY) budget authority totaling $71.9 billion and 8,326 full-time equivalent (FTE) employees,3 it remains the largest government agency charged with implementing federal housing policy. In addition to its headquarters in Washington, D.C., HUD has 10 regional offices as well as field offices and centers to implement specialized operational and enforcement responsibilities.4 HUD program offices also interface with various networks of implementing organizations such as locally chartered public housing agencies (PHAs) and federal, state, and local government and judicial bodies as well as such private industry participants as mortgage lenders. The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development can delegate authority to various entities across an array of HUD programs.5 The Secretary also oversees the Office of the Deputy Secretary;6 the Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA);7 the Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization (OSDBU);8 and the Center for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships (CFBNP).9 The Office of the Secretary also comprises a team of politically appointed positions and career support staff. Each of the following offices should be headed by political appointees except where otherwise noted. l Office of Administration, headed by the Chief Administration Officer. The Office of Administration has responsibilities for the Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer (OCHO, headed by the Chief Human Capital Officer, currently a career position) and the Office of the Chief Procurement Officer (CPO, headed by the Chief Procurement Officer, currently a career position). l Office of the Chief Financial Officer, headed by the Chief Financial Officer. l Office of the Chief Information Officer, headed by the Chief Information Officer. — 505 — Department of Housing and Urban Development l Office of Public Affairs, headed by a Senate-confirmed Assistant Secretary (AS) or Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary (PDAS). l Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations (CIR), headed by a Senate-confirmed AS or PDAS. l Office of Community Planning and Development (CPD), headed by a Senate-confirmed AS or Principal DAS. CPD administers various entitlement and non-entitlement programs across community development, disaster recovery, and housing for the homeless10 and individuals with special needs, including Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA). The two largest CPD-administered programs are the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program,11 which includes disaster recovery funding, and the Home Investment Partnerships Program (HOME).12 CPD’s Relocation and Real Estate Division (RRED) has departmental delegated authority for the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970.13 l Office of Public and Indian Housing (PIH), headed by a Senate- confirmed AS or PDAS. PIH administers public housing and tenant-based rental assistance programs, as well as authorities for Native American and Native Hawaiian housing assistance and loan guarantee programs under the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act (NAHSDA).14 Tenant-Based Rental Assistance represents the major portion of HUD’s nonemergency discretionary budget. HUD describes its Housing Choice Voucher Program as “an essential component of the Federal housing safety net for people in need.”15 PIH also implements funding for the Self- Sufficiency Coordinator Program; the Public Housing Fund (operating and capital funds for PHA administration of Section 9 public housing and Section 8 voucher programs); and Choice Neighborhoods (zeroed out during the Trump Administration budget request but included in HUD’s FY 2023 budget, which requests $250 million for the program).16 l Office of Housing and Federal Housing Administration (FHA), headed by a dual-hatted, Senate-confirmed AS and Federal Housing Commissioner or Acting Federal Housing Commissioner. The Office of Housing oversees implementation of the department’s project-based rental assistance (PBRA) multifamily housing portfolio, Section 202 supportive housing for the elderly program, Section 811 program for disabled persons’ housing, and Housing Counseling Assistance program. The Federal Housing Administration administers the Mutual Mortgage Insurance

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. Womack, Steve

Protecting Veteran Access to Telemedicine Services Act of 2025

119/hr/1107

Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2027

119/hr/9170

Tipped Employee Protection Act

119/hr/2312

Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2026