Duplication Scoring Act of 2026

Download PDF
Bill ID: 119/hr/8096
Last Updated: September 7, 2026

Sponsored by

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

ID: B001309

Follow the money

The bill

Duplication Scoring Act of 2026

HR. 8096, 119th Congress.

The sponsor

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

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

The money

$66,000 raised

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

The alignment

85% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Department of Labor and Related Agencies" section, p. 630-632 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 39 - 1.

May 19, 2026

Introduced

📍 Current Status

Next: The bill will be reviewed by relevant committees who will debate, amend, and vote on it.

🏛️

Committee Review

🗳️

Floor Action

✅

Passed House

🏛️

Senate Review

🎉

Passed Congress

🖊️

Presidential Action

⚖️

Became Law

📚 How does a bill become a law?

1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.

2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.

3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.

4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.

5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.

6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.

7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!

Bill Summary

Another masterpiece of legislative theater, courtesy of the geniuses in Congress. The Duplication Scoring Act of 2026 - because what's more exciting than a bill about bureaucracy? Let me put on my gloves and dissect this mess.

First off, I notice that the total funding amounts and budget allocations are conveniently absent from this bill. How quaint. It's like they want to hide the fact that they're throwing money at their favorite pet projects without actually telling us how much it'll cost. Brilliant strategy - just don't bother including the price tag, and maybe no one will notice.

As for key programs and agencies receiving funds, I see a lot of vague language about "existing Federal programs, offices, and initiatives." Wow, that's specific. I'm sure it has nothing to do with the fact that they're trying to sneak in some pork barrel spending without anyone noticing. And what's with the obsession with "duplicative or overlapping features"? Sounds like a fancy way of saying "we're going to create more bureaucracy to fix the bureaucracy we already have."

Notable increases or decreases from previous years? Ha! Don't make me laugh. This bill is all about smoke and mirrors, folks. They're not even bothering to pretend that they're being transparent about the funding.

Now, let's talk about riders and policy provisions attached to funding. Oh boy, this is where it gets good. I see a lot of language about "supplements to estimates" and "information submitted by the Comptroller General." Translation: they're going to use this bill as a Trojan horse to sneak in all sorts of goodies for their corporate donors and special interest groups.

Fiscal impact and deficit implications? Don't worry, folks, I'm sure it'll be just fine. I mean, what's a few billion dollars here or there when you're already running a massive deficit? It's not like they're going to bother with something as mundane as "math" or "fiscal responsibility."

In conclusion, this bill is a perfect example of the legislative disease that plagues our government: a toxic mix of corruption, cowardice, and stupidity. The symptoms are clear: vague language, hidden funding, and a complete disregard for fiscal responsibility. And the diagnosis? Terminal incompetence.

So, to all the politicians and bureaucrats involved in this farce, let me say: congratulations! You've managed to create a bill that's simultaneously boring and infuriating. That takes skill. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have better things to do than watch you people make fools of yourselves. Next patient, please!

Related Topics

Federal Budget & AppropriationsDefense Spending & ProcurementState & Local Government Affairs
Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

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

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

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

No PAC contributions found

No organization contributions found

No committee contributions found

1
KUHLMAN, RUTHIE
4 transactions
$13,200
2
STOWERS, HARRY
2 transactions
$6,600
3
POTTER, JOHN
2 transactions
$6,600
4
WILLIAMS, VIRGINIA
2 transactions
$6,600
5
BAILEY, ANN
2 transactions
$6,600
6
FUHRMAN, LINDSEY
1 transaction
$3,300
7
FUHRMAN, SCOTT
1 transaction
$3,300
8
HUFFAKER, RAY F
1 transaction
$3,300
9
COOLEY, WILLIAM
1 transaction
$3,300
10
HILL, LANSDEN
1 transaction
$3,300
11
FISER, DAVID
1 transaction
$3,300
12
SOUTH, STEPHEN A.
1 transaction
$3,300
13
WILLIAMS, STEVE E.
1 transaction
$3,300

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 4 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Rep. Stansbury, Melanie A. [D-NM-1]

ID: S001218

Top Contributors

70

1
PUYALLUP TRIBE OF INDIANS
OrganizationTACOMA, WA
$3,700
Jun 10, 2024
2
PUEBLO OF ISLETA
OrganizationISLETA, NM
$3,300
Nov 27, 2023
3
PUEBLO OF SANDIA
OrganizationBERNALILLO, NM
$3,300
Nov 27, 2023
4
PECHANGA BAND OF LUISENO INDIANS
OrganizationTEMECULA, CA
$3,300
Dec 6, 2023
5
PUEBLO OF SANTA ANA
OrganizationBERNALILLO, NM
$3,300
Dec 20, 2023
6
PUEBLO OF SANDIA
OrganizationBERNALILLO, NM
$3,300
Nov 27, 2023
7
PASCUA YAQUI TRIBE
OrganizationTUCSON, AZ
$3,300
Dec 30, 2023
8
AK-CHIN INDIAN COMMUNITY
OrganizationMARICOPA, AZ
$3,300
Mar 29, 2023
9
POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS
OrganizationATMORE, AL
$3,300
Mar 29, 2023
10
FEDERATED INDIANS OF GRANTON RANCHERIA
OrganizationROHNERT PARK, CA
$3,300
Mar 25, 2024

Rep. Gosar, Paul A. [R-AZ-9]

ID: G000565

Top Contributors

23

1
COLORADO RIVER INDIANS TRIBES
OrganizationPARKER, AZ
$2,000
Sep 21, 2023
2
COLORADO RIVER INDIANS TRIBES
OrganizationPARKER, AZ
$1,000
Jun 29, 2024
3
MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationBANNING, CA
$1,000
Jul 19, 2023
4
SCHIRMER, SCOTT
M3 COMP • EXECUTIVE
IndividualSCOTTSDALE, AZ
$5,000
May 20, 2024
5
SMITH, RYAN
SELF EMPLOYED • ENTREPRENEUR
IndividualSCOTTSDALE, AZ
$5,000
May 20, 2024
6
SCHIRMER, SCOTT
IndividualSCOTTSDALE, AZ
$5,000
Jun 5, 2024
7
SMITH, RYAN
IndividualSCOTTSDALE, AZ
$5,000
Jun 5, 2024
8
TAPIA, DONALD
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualPARADISE VALLEY, AZ
$5,000
Aug 29, 2024
9
TAPIA, DONALD
IndividualPARADISE VALLEY, AZ
$5,000
Sep 9, 2024
10
O'KEEFFE, WILLIAM
SAFTI • PRESIDENT
IndividualSAN FRANCISCO, CA
$5,000
Oct 23, 2024

Rep. Crockett, Jasmine [D-TX-30]

ID: C001130

Top Contributors

23

1
SHAKOPEE MDWEKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN
$1,650
May 2, 2024
2
SHAKOPEE MDWEKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN
$1,650
Jun 9, 2023
3
ALABAMA COUSHATTA TRIBE
OrganizationLIVINGSTON, TX
$1,000
Oct 25, 2024
4
SMITH, TODD
SMITH LACIEN LLP • ATTORNEY
IndividualCHICAGO, IL
$6,600
Feb 28, 2024
5
MATTHEWS, JOHN
MATTHEWS SOUTHWEST • DEVELOPER
IndividualARGYLE, TX
$6,600
May 9, 2023
6
MATTHEWS, LAURA
NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualARGYLE, TX
$6,600
Jun 28, 2023
7
MONTGOMERY, SADAT
NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualFRISCO, TX
$6,600
Jun 12, 2023
8
SMITH, TODD
SMITH LACIEN LLP • ATTORNEY
IndividualCHICAGO, IL
$6,200
Feb 28, 2024
9
BRYANT, KARIM
SELF EMPLOYED • ATTORNEY
IndividualIRVING, TX
$5,000
Jan 11, 2024
10
OLESKY, DAVID
MILLER WEISBROD OLESKY • ATTORNEY
IndividualDALLAS, TX
$4,600
Feb 15, 2024

Rep. Mace, Nancy [R-SC-1]

ID: M000194

Top Contributors

28

1
REW INVESTMENTS LLC
OrganizationMT PLEASANT, SC
$3,300
Jul 1, 2024
2
REW INVESTMENTS LLC
OrganizationMT PLEASANT, SC
$2,500
Jul 1, 2024
3
KING & SOCIETY, LLC
OrganizationMOUNT PLEASANT, SC
$2,000
Jul 1, 2024
4
BARBER BROTHERS, LLC
OrganizationMOUNT PLEASANT, SC
$1,000
Jul 1, 2024
5
COASTAL GREEN CBD LLC
OrganizationMYRTLE BEACH, SC
$1,000
Jul 1, 2024
6
MALL DRIVE MANAGEMENT, LLC
OrganizationCHARLESTON, SC
$1,000
Jul 1, 2024
7
SEAGLASS PARTNERS, LLC
OrganizationMOUNT PLEASANT, SC
$1,000
Jul 1, 2024
8
TWIN RIVERS HOLDINGS LLC
OrganizationMOUNT PLEASANT, SC
$1,000
Jul 1, 2024
9
GRIFFITH, JAMES
NONE • RETIRED
IndividualTUCSON, AZ
$6,600
Mar 30, 2023
10
RANNEY, TIM
NONE • RETIRED
IndividualSAINT PETERSBURG, FL
$6,600
Mar 27, 2023

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

PACs
Organizations
Individuals
Politicians

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

Loading...

Showing 23 nodes and 34 connections

Total contributions: $34

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

Showing top 13 donors by contribution amount

13 Individuals

Project 2025 Policy Matches

This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.AI-enhanced analysis provides detailed alignment ratings.

Department of Labor and Related Agencies

Strong
Vector: 62%
Pages: 630-632AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The Duplication Scoring Act aims to identify and eliminate overlap across federal programs, directly supporting the Project 2025 goal of streamlining workforce development programs, ensuring outcome-based metrics, and reducing fragmentation and waste in Department of Labor initiatives."

Key themes:duplication reductionprogram evaluationoutcome-based metricsgovernment efficiencyworkforce development

— 597 — Department of Labor and Related Agencies Alternative View. While the federal government has a duty to promote economy and efficiency in federal hiring and contracting, and thus should base decisions on skills as opposed to degrees, it is not the federal government’s role to determine whether private employers may or may not include degree requirements in job descriptions and in their hiring decisions. The inappropriate reverence given to degree requirements is a byproduct of the federal government’s heavy subsidi- zation of BA degrees. Phasing down federal subsidies would be a better way to eliminate barriers to jobs for individuals without BA degrees. Federal Workforce Development Programs. Existing federally funded work- force development and training programs should be reassessed to ensure they are outcome-based and truly deliver value to taxpayers and job seekers. As of 2019, the federal government spent approximately $17 billion annually on 43 federal employment and training programs administered across nine federal agencies, many of which overlap with at least one other program. Many of these programs track only inputs or individuals served, not outcomes or outputs, and do not swiftly identify bad-actor grantees. The federal government should identify underperforming programs and eliminate or redirect that funding to programs with strong outcome-based metrics. l Evaluate and streamline workforce development programs, ensuring evidence-based outcomes. In its reauthorization of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA),14 Congress should evaluate and streamline the existing workforce development programs to ensure there is no overlap or fragmentation between programs. Congress should also ensure strong evidence-based outcomes for each program and tie federal funding for those programs to the outcomes achieved. l Review employment and training programs to ensure outcome- based metrics. DOL and other federal agencies with jurisdiction over employment and training programs should review their programs and utilize all available tools and authority to ensure these programs contain strong outcome-based metrics. To the extent that agencies have this authority, they should reevaluate funding for programs that do not meet those evidence-based and outcomes-based requirements. Finally, strong internal policies should be implemented to ensure bad-actor grantees are identified and sanctioned expeditiously. Federal Unemployment Insurance Program. In the post-pandemic land- scape, the federal government should restore the Unemployment Insurance (UI) program’s purpose with a particular focus on reestablishing program integrity and accountability. The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act15 — 598 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise unemployment programs were defrauded of hundreds of billions of dollars, includ- ing by state-sponsored hacking groups. Not all state agencies are yet through their backlogs of appeals and fraud cases; the recovery of lost funds has been minimal; and fraud has now spilled into the traditional UI programs. The CARES Act era drastically altered the entire UI ecosystem: The federal–state partnership shifted toward federal programs and funding, and the social insurance purpose of the program was disconnected as benefits were extended, expanded to more typically uncovered populations, and made exponentially larger. l Congress should enact bipartisan commonsense UI program reforms, including statutory authority for the Labor Office of Inspector General (OIG) to access all state UI records for the purposes of investigation and requiring state agencies to crossmatch applicants with the National Directory of New Hires. l Congress should also develop a framework (through commission of a congressional report to serve as a blueprint) of technical standards on broader tech topics like usability, state agency cybersecurity postures, data taxonomy standardization, and/or identity verification standards. l Congress should provide DOL with more reasonable enforcement tools for the UI system. Currently, DOL can either send a strongly worded letter or revoke the entire Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA)16 tax credit, which would place an immediate 6 percent to 7 percent tax on all covered employers. l DOL should review all actual or planned procurements against the $2 billion (under the American Rescue Plan Act)17 for UI fraud detection, accessibility, and equity investments. These funds do not have appropriations timelines and have very minimal statutory descriptions of the intended purpose. DOL should also review and propose changes to improve state monitoring programs including developing evidence-based frameworks for evaluating the technical readiness and security postures of the state agencies; strengthen its relationship with the OIG and Government Accountability Office (GAO), and support continued development of fraud prosecution with DOJ, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and the financial services community; ensure administrative and IT funding is outcome-based; and gather and publish best practices from state officials, industry partners, and other vendors who deliver UI services.

Department of Labor and Related Agencies

Strong
Vector: 62%
Pages: 630-632AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The Duplication Scoring Act directly supports Project 2025's goal to evaluate and streamline federal workforce development programs by mandating systematic analysis of legislative proposals for duplication and overlap, thereby promoting efficiency, outcome‑based accountability, and reduced fragmentation."

Key themes:duplication analysisprogram streamliningoutcome-based metricsfederal efficiencyworkforce development

— 597 — Department of Labor and Related Agencies Alternative View. While the federal government has a duty to promote economy and efficiency in federal hiring and contracting, and thus should base decisions on skills as opposed to degrees, it is not the federal government’s role to determine whether private employers may or may not include degree requirements in job descriptions and in their hiring decisions. The inappropriate reverence given to degree requirements is a byproduct of the federal government’s heavy subsidi- zation of BA degrees. Phasing down federal subsidies would be a better way to eliminate barriers to jobs for individuals without BA degrees. Federal Workforce Development Programs. Existing federally funded work- force development and training programs should be reassessed to ensure they are outcome-based and truly deliver value to taxpayers and job seekers. As of 2019, the federal government spent approximately $17 billion annually on 43 federal employment and training programs administered across nine federal agencies, many of which overlap with at least one other program. Many of these programs track only inputs or individuals served, not outcomes or outputs, and do not swiftly identify bad-actor grantees. The federal government should identify underperforming programs and eliminate or redirect that funding to programs with strong outcome-based metrics. l Evaluate and streamline workforce development programs, ensuring evidence-based outcomes. In its reauthorization of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA),14 Congress should evaluate and streamline the existing workforce development programs to ensure there is no overlap or fragmentation between programs. Congress should also ensure strong evidence-based outcomes for each program and tie federal funding for those programs to the outcomes achieved. l Review employment and training programs to ensure outcome- based metrics. DOL and other federal agencies with jurisdiction over employment and training programs should review their programs and utilize all available tools and authority to ensure these programs contain strong outcome-based metrics. To the extent that agencies have this authority, they should reevaluate funding for programs that do not meet those evidence-based and outcomes-based requirements. Finally, strong internal policies should be implemented to ensure bad-actor grantees are identified and sanctioned expeditiously. Federal Unemployment Insurance Program. In the post-pandemic land- scape, the federal government should restore the Unemployment Insurance (UI) program’s purpose with a particular focus on reestablishing program integrity and accountability. The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act15

Department of Education

Strong
Vector: 61%
Pages: 392-394AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The Duplication Scoring Act aims to identify and mitigate duplication across federal programs, directly supporting Project 2025's Education‑sector goals of eliminating duplicative and ineffective programs, consolidating the department, and trimming nonessential staff to achieve budget savings."

Key themes:duplication eliminationprogram consolidationbudget efficiencyoversight and accountabilityreducing waste

— 359 — Department of Education l The reissuing of the report on school safety from 2018 with updated information, l The release of a report to Congress on how to consolidate the department and trim nonessential employees, l A report on the negative influence of action civics on students’ understanding of history and civics and their disposition toward the United States, l An update of the Coleman report to show the impact of family structure on student achievement, l A full accounting of CARES Act education expenditures, and l A report on how many dollars make their way to the classroom in every federal education grant and program. Pursue Antitrust Against Accreditors l The President should issue an executive order pursuing antitrust against college accreditors, especially the American Bar Association (ABA). NEW POLICIES/REGULATIONS THAT REQUIRE COORDINATION WITH OTHER AGENCIES AND/OR THE WHITE HOUSE The department must coordinate any rulemaking with the White House, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), DOJ, and other agencies that share responsibility with the department in the administration or enforcement of stat- ute, such as Titles VI and IX. Moreover, regarding regulations arising under civil rights laws administered by the department, Executive Order 12550 requires the Attorney General to approve final regulations; the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights must approve notices of proposed rulemaking. Organizational Issues Historical Budget Information. Congressional appropriations for the U.S. Department of Education have risen from $14 billion in 1980 to $95.5 billion in 2021, an astounding increase, especially in light of the lack of improvements in student outcomes. Recommend Budget Cuts, Shifts, and Augmentations, If Any. Transferring most of the programs at the U.S. Department of Education to other agencies and eliminating duplicative and ineffective programs would yield significant taxpayer — 360 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise CHART 4 U.S. Department of Education, Total Appropriations IN BILLIONS OF DOLLARS $120 $100 $95.5 $80 $60 $40 $20 $14 $0 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 NOTE: Totals include mandatory and discretionary appropriations. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, “Budget History Tables,” Education Department Budget History Table, https://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/history/index.html (accessed March 17, 2023). A heritage.org savings. The proposal would immediately save more than $17 billion annually in various programs. Savings over a decade would be far more robust, as the revenue responsibility for many formula grant programs would be returned to the states. Some highlights include: l Eliminate competitive grant programs and reduce spending on formula grant programs. Competitive grant programs operated by the Department of Education should be eliminated, and federal spending should be reduced to reflect remaining formula grant programs authorized under Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) and the handful of other programs that do not fall under the competitive/ project grant category. Remaining programs managed by the Department

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