The bill
New Opportunities for Business Ownership and Self-Sufficiency Act
HR. 6431, 119th Congress — read as touching Private Equity & Hedge Funds.
Sponsored by
Rep. Carey, Mike [R-OH-15]
ID: C001126
Follow the money
The bill
HR. 6431, 119th Congress — read as touching Private Equity & Hedge Funds.
The sponsor
Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.
The money
20 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.
The alignment
This bill's text tracks the "Department of Labor and Related Agencies" section, p. 627-629 of the Mandate for Leadership.
Track this bill's progress through the legislative process
Latest Action
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.
April 27, 2026
📍 Current Status
Next: Both chambers must agree on the same version of the bill.
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!
Another masterpiece of legislative theater, courtesy of the geniuses in Congress. The "New Opportunities for Business Ownership and Self-Sufficiency Act" - because what could possibly go wrong with a title that sounds like it was written by a committee of tone-deaf bureaucrats?
Let's dissect this mess, shall we? The bill modifies the rules governing state administration of self-employment assistance programs, because apparently, the current system wasn't complex enough. We're talking about a regulatory overhaul that's equivalent to trying to fix a broken leg with a sledgehammer.
New regulations are being created or modified, because who needs simplicity and clarity when you can have Byzantine complexity? The affected industries and sectors will be thrilled to learn that they'll have to navigate an even more labyrinthine system, complete with new requirements for entrepreneurial training, business counseling, and technical assistance. Because, you know, small businesses weren't already drowning in a sea of paperwork and bureaucratic red tape.
Compliance requirements and timelines? Oh boy, get ready for a real treat. The bill introduces a weekly certification requirement, because who doesn't love filling out more forms on a regular basis? And the effective date? A whole two years after enactment, giving states plenty of time to scramble and figure out how to implement this mess.
Enforcement mechanisms and penalties? Ha! Don't worry, the Secretary of Labor will be issuing regulations and guidance, because that's always worked out so well in the past. I'm sure the Office of Management and Budget will be thrilled to approve these new regulations, and the public notice and comment period will be a real exercise in democracy.
The economic and operational impacts? Well, let's just say that this bill is a perfect example of how to strangle small businesses with red tape while pretending to help them. The increased regulatory burden will be a boon for lawyers, accountants, and bureaucrats, but a nightmare for actual entrepreneurs trying to create jobs and grow their businesses.
In short, this bill is a classic case of "legislative lupus" - a disease where politicians' brains are eaten away by their own hubris and incompetence. The symptoms include an inability to understand basic economics, a penchant for creating complexity, and a complete disregard for the consequences of their actions. And the diagnosis? Terminal stupidity, with a healthy dose of corruption and greed on the side.
Rep. Carey, Mike [R-OH-15]
Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle
No PAC contributions found
No organization contributions found
No committee contributions found
This bill has 6 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.
ID: L000601
Top Contributors
23
ID: M001222
Top Contributors
21
ID: Y000067
Top Contributors
30
ID: F000446
Top Contributors
25
ID: M001224
Top Contributors
20
ID: V000138
Top Contributors
22
Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.
Showing 31 nodes and 41 connections
Total contributions: $41
Showing top 16 donors by contribution amount
Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 3 helped.
Section 2(d) increases the limitation on the number of individuals participating in self-employment assistance programs from 5 to 10, which could lead to more opportunities for entrepreneurs and small business owners, potentially benefiting private equity and hedge funds that invest in such ventures.
Section 2(b) mentions entrepreneurial training, business counseling, and technical assistance, which could involve online platforms and tools provided by big tech companies, potentially benefiting them through increased demand for their services.
Section 2(b) also mentions business plan and market feasibility study submissions, which could involve e-commerce and retail technology platforms, potentially benefiting them through increased adoption and usage.
For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Rep. Carey, Mike [R-OH-15])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.
This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.AI-enhanced analysis provides detailed alignment ratings.
AI Analysis:
"HR 6431 aligns with Project 2025's focus on reducing regulatory burdens and expanding entrepreneurial opportunities by modifying self-employment assistance programs to provide training and support without restrictive eligibility requirements, thereby promoting small business development and self-sufficiency."
— 594 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Exemptions from Regulations for Small Business. Burdensome regulations have anti-competitive effects. In general, larger, higher-margin businesses are better able to absorb the costs of regulatory compliance than are small businesses, and under the Biden Administration, big-business lobbies have affirmatively embraced certain regulations (such as the COVID vaccine mandate for private employers) to reduce competition from smaller businesses. Research suggests that labor regula- tions may pose the highest aggregate regulatory cost for small businesses. l The labor agencies should exercise their available discretion and duties under the Regulatory Flexibility Act12 to exempt small entities from regulations where possible. l Congress should enact legislation increasing the revenue thresholds at which the National Labor Relations Board asserts jurisdiction over employers to match changes in inflation that have occurred since 1935 and better reflect the definition of “small business” used by the federal government. l Congress (and DOL, in its enforcement discretion) should exempt small business, first-time, non-willful violators from fines issued by the Occupational Health and Safety Administration. EDUCATION AND VOCATIONAL TRAINING Apprenticeships. The next Administration should return to prior policy and implement an industry-recognized apprenticeship program separate from the Registered Apprenticeship Program (RAP) and explore how best to modernize, streamline, and eliminate duplication in the RAP. For roughly 80 years, the RAP— which requires conforming to government standards and includes federal funding, tax credits, and other federal resources—has dominated apprenticeship programs in the U.S. Organizations across the political spectrum have noted that the overly burdensome requirements of RAPs have contributed to limiting them to legacy trades, failing to meet growing industry demands such as in health care and tech- nology. A 2017 study estimated that the number of occupations commonly filled through apprenticeships could nearly triple (from 27 to 74), that the number of job openings filled through apprenticeships could expand eightfold (to 3.2 million), and that the occupations ripe for apprenticeship expansion could offer 20 percent higher wages than traditional apprenticeship occupations. The Trump Administration expanded apprenticeship options through the cre- ation of the Industry-Recognized Apprenticeship Program (IRAP), and more than 130 IRAPs were created. The Biden Administration rescinded the IRAP regulations.
AI Analysis:
"HR 6431 promotes entrepreneurship and self-sufficiency through expanded self-employment assistance, aligning with Project 2025’s goal of protecting small businesses and encouraging independent work, though it does not address the specific independent contractor or joint‑employer rules detailed in the policy."
— 591 — Department of Labor and Related Agencies qualify as an independent contractor or employee under the FLSA and NLRA. The Biden Administration is replacing those rules with vague and expansive definitions that would add uncertainty, increase costs, and reduce options for Americans who want to work independently. l NLRB and DOL should return to their 2019 and 2021 independent contractor rules that provided much-needed clarity for workers and employers. l Congress should establish a bright-line test—based on the level of control an individual exercises over his or her work—to determine whether a payee is an employee or an independent contractor, across all relevant laws. This would prevent continued uncertainty as well as provide continuity across federal laws. l Congress should provide a safe harbor from employer-employee status for companies that offer independent workers access to earned benefits. Doing so would increase access among independent contractors to traditional pooled workplace benefits such as health care and retirement savings accounts. Protect Small Businesses and Entrepreneurship (Joint Employer). Millions of busi- nesses across America engage in mutually beneficial affiliation arrangements with other businesses. These arrangements include janitorial services, staffing firms, construction contractors and subcontractors, technology support services, and many other vendor and contracting services. They also include the nearly 775,000 independently owned franchise businesses, which employ 8.2 million workers across the United States. The franchise structure offers a proven business model for individuals who want to own and operate their own small business. An Obama-era regulation changed the definition of a joint employer to make corporate franchi- sors jointly liable for employees of individual franchisee owners, even without the franchisor exercising any direct control over those employees. The Biden Admin- istration is advancing an even more expansive definition of a joint employer that would upend the franchise business model, taking away ownership and income opportunities from small-business entrepreneurs, costing jobs, and raising prices. l DOL and NLRB should return to the long-standing approach to defining joint employers based on direct and immediate control. l Congress should enact the Save Local Business Act, which would codify the long-standing definition that has existed outside the Obama-era and Biden-proposed rules. — 592 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Overtime Pay Threshold. Overtime pay is one of the most challenging aspects of the Fair Labor Standards Act rules. “Nonexempt workers” (e.g., workers whose job duties fall within the law’s power or whose total pay is low enough) must be paid overtime (150 percent of the “regular rate”) for every hour over 40 in a work- week. Overtime requirements may discourage employers from offering certain fringe benefits such as reimbursement for education, childcare, or even free meals because the benefits’ value may be included in the “regular rate” that must be paid at 150 percent for all overtime hours. And because some of these fringe ben- efits may be more valuable (and often come with tax preferences that benefit the worker), the goal should be to set a threshold to ensure lower-income workers have the protections of overtime pay without discouraging employers from offering these benefits. l DOL should maintain an overtime threshold that does not punish businesses in lower-cost regions (e.g., the southeast United States). The Trump-era threshold is high enough to capture most line workers in lower-cost regions. One possibility to consider (likely requiring congressional action) would be to automatically update the thresholds every five years using the Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE) as an inflation adjustment. This could reduce the likelihood of a future Administration attempting to make significant changes but would also impose more adjustments on businesses as those automatic increases take hold. l Congress should clarify that the “regular rate” for overtime pay is based on the salary paid rather than all benefits provided. This would enable employers to offer additional benefits to employees without fear that those benefits would dramatically increase overtime pay. l Congress should provide flexibility to employers and employees to calculate the overtime period over a longer number of weeks. Specifically, employers and employees should be able to set a two- or four- week period over which to calculate overtime. This would give workers greater flexibility to work more hours in one week and fewer hours in the next and would not require the employer to pay them more for that same total number of hours of work during the entire period. Compliance-Assistance Programming. Labor agencies are often tempted to encourage “over compliance” by companies subject to regulation by pursuing “regulation through enforcement” strategies. Rather than giving regulated enti- ties clear boundaries for what they can and cannot do under the law, the agencies
AI Analysis:
"HR 6431 promotes entrepreneurship through training and counseling, which aligns with Project 2025's focus on workforce development, apprenticeship expansion, and reducing regulatory burdens for small businesses, though it does not directly address apprenticeships or specific regulatory exemptions."
— 594 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Exemptions from Regulations for Small Business. Burdensome regulations have anti-competitive effects. In general, larger, higher-margin businesses are better able to absorb the costs of regulatory compliance than are small businesses, and under the Biden Administration, big-business lobbies have affirmatively embraced certain regulations (such as the COVID vaccine mandate for private employers) to reduce competition from smaller businesses. Research suggests that labor regula- tions may pose the highest aggregate regulatory cost for small businesses. l The labor agencies should exercise their available discretion and duties under the Regulatory Flexibility Act12 to exempt small entities from regulations where possible. l Congress should enact legislation increasing the revenue thresholds at which the National Labor Relations Board asserts jurisdiction over employers to match changes in inflation that have occurred since 1935 and better reflect the definition of “small business” used by the federal government. l Congress (and DOL, in its enforcement discretion) should exempt small business, first-time, non-willful violators from fines issued by the Occupational Health and Safety Administration. EDUCATION AND VOCATIONAL TRAINING Apprenticeships. The next Administration should return to prior policy and implement an industry-recognized apprenticeship program separate from the Registered Apprenticeship Program (RAP) and explore how best to modernize, streamline, and eliminate duplication in the RAP. For roughly 80 years, the RAP— which requires conforming to government standards and includes federal funding, tax credits, and other federal resources—has dominated apprenticeship programs in the U.S. Organizations across the political spectrum have noted that the overly burdensome requirements of RAPs have contributed to limiting them to legacy trades, failing to meet growing industry demands such as in health care and tech- nology. A 2017 study estimated that the number of occupations commonly filled through apprenticeships could nearly triple (from 27 to 74), that the number of job openings filled through apprenticeships could expand eightfold (to 3.2 million), and that the occupations ripe for apprenticeship expansion could offer 20 percent higher wages than traditional apprenticeship occupations. The Trump Administration expanded apprenticeship options through the cre- ation of the Industry-Recognized Apprenticeship Program (IRAP), and more than 130 IRAPs were created. The Biden Administration rescinded the IRAP regulations. — 595 — Department of Labor and Related Agencies l Congress should expand apprenticeship programs outside of the RAP model, re-creating the IRAP system by statute and allowing approved entities such as trade associations and educational institutions to recognize and oversee apprenticeship programs. In addition, religious organizations should be encouraged to participate in apprenticeship programs. America has a long history of religious organizations working to advance the dignity of workers and provide them with greater opportunity, from the many prominent Christian and Jewish voices in the early labor movement to the “labor priests” who would appear on picket lines to support their flocks. Today, the role of religion in helping workers has diminished, but a country committed to strengthening civil society must ask more from religious organizations and make sure that their important role is not impeded by regulatory roadblocks or the bureaucratic status quo. l Encourage and enable religious organizations to participate in apprenticeship programs, etc. Both DOL and NLRB should facilitate religious organizations helping to strengthen working families via apprenticeship programs, worker organizations, vocational training, benefits networks, etc. Hazard-Order Regulations. Some young adults show an interest in inherently dangerous jobs. Current rules forbid many young people, even if their family is running the business, from working in such jobs. This results in worker shortages in dangerous fields and often discourages otherwise interested young workers from trying the more dangerous job. With parental consent and proper training, certain young adults should be allowed to learn and work in more dangerous occupations. This would give a green light to training programs and build skills in teenagers who may want to work in these fields. l DOL should amend its hazard-order regulations to permit teenage workers access to work in regulated jobs with proper training and parental consent. Workforce Training Grant Program. The federal government spends more than $100 billion per year subsidizing higher education but close to zero supporting people on non-college pathways. l Congress should create an employer grant worth up to $10,000 per year or pro-rated portion thereof for each worker engaged in
Showing 3 of 5 policy matches
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.
Clean Energy Demonstration Transparency Act of 2025
119/hr/1453
Preventing Waste, Fraud, and Abuse in TANF Act
119/hr/8872
Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Internal Revenue Service relating to "Gross Proceeds Reporting by Brokers That Regularly Provide Services Effectuating Digital Asset Sales".
119/hjres/25