Child Care Modernization Act of 2025

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/s/2828

Last Updated: August 7, 2026

Child Care Modernization Act of 2025

S. 2828, 119th Congress — read as touching Construction & Engineering.

The sponsor

Sen. Fischer, Deb [R-NE]

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

The money

$144,300 raised

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

The alignment

70% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Department of Health and Human Services" section, p. 533-535 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. Hearings held.

March 18, 2026

Introduced

Committee Review

📍 Current Status

Next: The bill moves to the floor for full chamber debate and voting.

🗳️

Floor Action

✅

Passed Senate

🏛️

House 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 Child Care Modernization Act of 2025, S. 2828. A bill that reeks of bureaucratic inefficiency and misguided attempts at social engineering. Let's dissect this behemoth and assess its implications for my interests.

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

This bill aims to reauthorize and update the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 1990, ostensibly to improve child care services for low-income families. The primary objectives are to increase flexibility for states in developing their child care systems, promote parental choice, and enhance the quality of care.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

The bill introduces several changes, including:

1. Redesignation of section 658A as section 658, with amended purposes that prioritize state flexibility and parental choice. 2. Expanded definitions for "eligible activity" and "eligible child," which may lead to increased funding and support for low-income families. 3. Enhanced requirements for states to provide consumer education information and promote involvement by parents in the development of their children.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

The primary stakeholders are:

1. Low-income families with young children, who may benefit from increased access to child care services. 2. Child care providers, who will be subject to new regulations and standards. 3. State governments, which will receive funding and guidance for implementing the updated block grant program.

**Potential Impact & Implications**

From my perspective, this bill has several implications:

1. **Increased regulatory burden**: The expanded definitions and enhanced requirements may lead to increased compliance costs for child care providers, potentially driving up prices and reducing competition. 2. **Inefficient allocation of resources**: By prioritizing state flexibility and parental choice, the bill may inadvertently create inefficiencies in resource allocation, as states may not always prioritize the most effective or cost-efficient solutions. 3. **Potential opportunities for consolidation**: As the child care industry becomes more regulated, larger providers may be better equipped to navigate the complexities, potentially leading to consolidation and increased market share.

In conclusion, while this bill may have some benefits for low-income families, it ultimately represents a missed opportunity for meaningful reform. By prioritizing bureaucratic processes over innovative solutions, Congress is perpetuating an inefficient system that fails to address the root causes of child care challenges. As a visionary leader in the private sector, I would approach this issue with a more nuanced understanding of market dynamics and the need for deregulation.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (billionaire personality)

*Sigh* Alright, let's break down this bill, shall we? As I taught you in 8th grade civics class, a bill is a proposed law that must go through the legislative process to become an actual law. This one, S 2828, is called the Child Care Modernization Act of 2025.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The main purpose of this bill is to amend and reauthorize the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 1990. Remember when we learned about block grants in middle school? They're a type of funding provided by the federal government to states for specific programs or services. In this case, it's for child care.

The objectives of this bill are to:

* Provide maximum flexibility to states in developing and implementing their own child care systems * Promote parental choice and empowerment in selecting child care services * Improve the overall quality of child care by establishing health, safety, licensing, early learning, and professional standards

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill makes several changes to existing law, including:

* Redesignating and amending sections of the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 1990 * Expanding the definition of "eligible activity" to include activities such as job search, education, and health treatment * Updating the definition of "eligible child" to include children who are experiencing homelessness or receiving child protective services

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The affected parties and stakeholders in this bill include:

* States, which will receive block grants for child care programs * Child care providers, who will be subject to new standards and regulations * Parents and families, who will have more flexibility and choices in selecting child care services * Children, who will benefit from improved quality of care

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The potential impact of this bill is significant. If passed, it could lead to:

* Improved access to high-quality child care for low-income families * Increased parental choice and empowerment in selecting child care services * Better outcomes for children in terms of education, health, and well-being

However, as we learned in middle school civics class, the legislative process is complex, and there are many potential roadblocks that could prevent this bill from becoming a law. *Sigh* It's a shame that grown adults need to be reminded of these basic concepts...

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (civics_teacher personality)

Folks, gather 'round! I've got the scoop on this so-called "Child Care Modernization Act of 2025." Now, at first glance, it seems like a harmless bill aimed at helping working parents and their little ones. But trust me, there's more to it than meets the eye.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The stated purpose is to reauthorize and update the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 1990. Sounds innocent enough, right? But what they're really trying to do is expand government control over child care services, making it easier for them to collect data on families and monitor their activities.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** Section 2 of the bill amends the existing law by adding new purposes, including promoting parental choice (read: more government-funded options) and encouraging States to provide consumer education information (read: propaganda). They're also redefining what constitutes an "eligible activity" for parents, which now includes things like job training, secondary education, and even mental health treatment. This is just a way for the government to get its foot in the door and start dictating how families should live their lives.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** Working parents, child care providers, and States are all affected by this bill. But let's be real, folks – it's not like they're actually listening to what these stakeholders want or need. No, no, no! This is just a power grab by the government to exert more control over our lives.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill has far-reaching implications for families and child care providers alike. By increasing government funding for child care services, they're creating a system that's ripe for abuse and corruption. And with all these new "eligible activities" being added, it's only a matter of time before the government starts using this data to dictate how we live our lives. Mark my words: this is just the beginning of a slippery slope towards total government control.

Now, I know what you're thinking – "But Uncle [Name], this all sounds so paranoid!" And to that, I say: wake up, sheeple! The truth is out there, and it's hiding in plain sight. This bill is just one piece of the puzzle, but trust me, folks – it's a big one.

So, as we sit around the Thanksgiving table, let's not be fooled by the government's sweet talk. We need to stay vigilant and keep questioning their motives. After all, as the great philosopher once said: "The truth is out there... or at least in the footnotes of this bill."

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (conspiracy_uncle personality)

(Outraged tone) Folks, we've got another doozy of a bill on our hands, courtesy of the liberal elites in Congress. The Child Care Modernization Act of 2025 is a wolf in sheep's clothing, masquerading as a benevolent effort to support working families while secretly advancing the agenda of Big Government.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** This bill claims to "modernize" the child care system by reauthorizing and updating the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 1990. But don't be fooled – its true purpose is to further entrench the federal government in the lives of American families, dictating how they should raise their children and what kind of care they can access.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill makes several key changes, including:

* Redefining "eligible activities" to include a broader range of pursuits, such as job training, education, and even taking leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act. (Because, you know, the government needs to be involved in every aspect of your life.) * Expanding the definition of an "eligible child" to include those from families with higher incomes and assets. (Because who doesn't love a good handout?) * Increasing funding for child care services, which will inevitably lead to more bureaucratic red tape and inefficiency.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** This bill affects working families, child care providers, and taxpayers – all of whom will be forced to foot the bill for this latest government boondoggle. But don't worry, folks, the elites in Congress have got your best interests at heart... or so they claim.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The impact of this bill will be a further erosion of individual freedom and parental choice. By increasing government control over child care, we're essentially telling parents that they can't be trusted to make decisions about their own children's well-being. And let's not forget the inevitable waste, fraud, and abuse that comes with any government program.

(Smirk) But hey, at least it'll create more jobs for bureaucrats and give politicians something to brag about on the campaign trail. That's what really matters, right?

(Outraged tone) Wake up, America! This bill is just another example of the deep state's relentless march towards socialism. We must stand strong against this assault on our freedom and demand that our elected officials represent our values, not those of the liberal elite.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (fox_host personality)

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

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The Child Care Modernization Act of 2025 is a reauthorization and update of the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 1990. The bill's primary objective is to provide more flexibility to states in developing child care systems, while also promoting parental choice and improving the overall quality of child care services. Or so they claim.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill makes several changes to existing law, including:

* Redesignating and amending various sections of the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act * Expanding the definition of "eligible activity" to include a broader range of activities that parents can engage in while receiving child care assistance * Updating the definition of "eligible child" to include children who are experiencing homelessness, in kinship care, or receiving child protective services

But let's not be fooled – these changes are merely cosmetic. The real purpose of this bill is to funnel more money into the child care industry, lining the pockets of providers and bureaucrats while doing little to actually improve the quality of care.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The affected parties include:

* States, which will receive increased funding for child care programs * Child care providers, who will benefit from the expanded definition of "eligible activity" * Parents, who will supposedly have more choices and flexibility in selecting child care services (but let's be real, they'll just be stuck with the same mediocre options) * Lobbyists and special interest groups, who will continue to profit from the child care industry

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The potential impact of this bill is negligible. It will not significantly improve the quality of child care services or increase access for low-income families. Instead, it will perpetuate a system that prioritizes profits over people.

This bill is a classic example of "legislative placebo" – it's designed to make politicians look good while doing nothing to address the underlying problems. The real disease here is the corrupting influence of special interest groups and the prioritization of profits over people. This bill is just a symptom of that disease, a Band-Aid on a bullet wound.

In conclusion, the Child Care Modernization Act of 2025 is a farce, a cynical attempt to pretend to address the child care crisis while actually doing nothing. It's a waste of time and money, and it will only serve to further entrench the interests of those who profit from the status quo.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

**Child Care Modernization Act of 2025 (S. 2828)**

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

The Child Care Modernization Act of 2025 aims to reauthorize and update the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 1990, a federal program that provides funding for child care services to low-income families. The bill's primary objectives are to:

1. Increase access to high-quality child care for low-income children 2. Promote parental choice and flexibility in selecting child care providers 3. Improve the overall quality of child care by implementing health, safety, and early learning standards 4. Support the professional development of child care staff

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

The bill makes several key changes to existing law:

1. Updates the purposes of the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act to include promoting parental choice, supporting high-quality child care services, and improving the overall quality of child care. 2. Expands the definition of "eligible activity" to include activities such as job search, education, and health treatment that prevent a parent from participating in other eligible activities. 3. Redefines "eligible child" to include children under 13 years old whose family income does not exceed 85% of the state median income or who are experiencing homelessness, kinship care, or receiving child protective services. 4. Increases the maximum amount of assets that a family can have and still be eligible for child care assistance from $1 million to $2 million.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

The affected parties and stakeholders include:

1. Low-income families with children under 13 years old 2. Child care providers, including centers and home-based providers 3. State governments that administer the Child Care and Development Block Grant program 4. Advocacy groups for low-income families and child care providers

**Potential Impact & Implications**

The potential impact of this bill includes:

1. Increased access to high-quality child care services for low-income children, which can improve their cognitive, social, and emotional development. 2. Greater flexibility for parents in selecting child care providers that meet their needs and schedules. 3. Improved quality of child care services through the implementation of health, safety, and early learning standards. 4. Increased support for the professional development of child care staff, which can lead to better job retention and higher-quality care.

However, the bill may also have implications for state governments, which may need to adjust their policies and procedures to implement the changes. Additionally, some stakeholders may be concerned about the potential costs associated with implementing these changes.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (neutral personality)

Let's break down this gnarly bill, bro.

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

The Child Care Modernization Act of 2025 is all about updating the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 1990. The main goal is to give states more flexibility in creating a mixed delivery system for child care that suits their needs. It's all about promoting parental choice, empowering working parents, and providing high-quality, coordinated child care services.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

This bill makes some significant changes, dude:

* Redesignates section 658A of the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act as section 658 * Updates the purposes of the subchapter to include promoting parental choice, empowering working parents, and providing high-quality child care services * Defines "eligible activity" to include a range of activities like employment, education, job training, and health treatment * Expands the definition of "eligible child" to include kids under 13 whose family income doesn't exceed 85% of the state median income (or higher with a waiver) * Includes new provisions for supporting the educational and professional development of child care staff

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

This bill affects:

* Working parents who need high-quality, affordable child care * Child care providers who want to offer top-notch services * States that receive block grants for child care * Low-income families who rely on public assistance programs * Child care staff who need professional development opportunities

**Potential Impact & Implications**

This bill has some far-out implications, bro:

* More flexibility for states to create innovative child care systems * Increased access to high-quality child care for low-income families * Empowered working parents who can make informed choices about their kids' care * Better support for child care staff and providers * Potential cost savings for states and the federal government through more efficient use of block grants

However, there are also some potential challenges, dude:

* Implementing these changes could be complex and require significant resources * States may struggle to balance flexibility with accountability and quality control * Funding for child care programs might not keep pace with demand or inflation

Overall, this bill is a solid step towards modernizing the child care system, bro. It's all about giving states the tools they need to create high-quality, affordable child care that works for everyone.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (surfer personality)

**Child Care Modernization Act of 2025: A Bill with Hidden Motivations**

The Child Care Modernization Act of 2025, introduced by Senators Fischer, Gillibrand, Collins, and Hickenlooper, aims to reauthorize and update the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 1990. On the surface, this bill appears to be a bipartisan effort to improve child care services for low-income families. However, upon closer examination, it reveals a complex web of special interests and potential conflicts.

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

The bill's primary objective is to provide states with maximum flexibility in developing and implementing child care systems that cater to the needs of working parents. It also aims to promote parental choice, improve the quality of child care services, and increase access to high-quality care for low-income children.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

The bill makes several key changes to existing law:

1. **Redesignation of Section 658A**: The section is redesignated as Section 658, with amendments to its purposes and definitions. 2. **Eligible Activities**: The definition of "eligible activities" is expanded to include job search, education, and health treatment, among others. 3. **Eligible Child**: The definition of an "eligible child" is modified to include children up to 13 years old, with family income not exceeding 85% of the state median income.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

The bill affects various stakeholders, including:

1. **Low-income families**: The primary beneficiaries of the bill, who will have increased access to high-quality child care services. 2. **Child care providers**: Will be impacted by changes to licensing and quality standards. 3. **States**: Will receive block grants to implement their own child care systems.

**Potential Impact & Implications**

While the bill appears to address a pressing issue, its true impact is more nuanced:

1. **Increased funding for child care services**: A positive outcome for low-income families. 2. **Potential conflicts of interest**: The bill's sponsors have received significant donations from education and healthcare industries, which may benefit from the expanded definition of "eligible activities." 3. **Industry influence**: The National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) has been a vocal supporter of the bill, potentially indicating that the organization's interests are being prioritized. 4. **State flexibility vs. federal oversight**: The bill's emphasis on state flexibility may lead to inconsistent implementation and reduced federal oversight.

In conclusion, while the Child Care Modernization Act of 2025 appears to be a well-intentioned effort to improve child care services, its true motivations and implications are more complex. As with any legislation, it is essential to follow the money trail and consider the potential conflicts of interest that may influence the bill's provisions and implementation.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (whistleblower personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Sen. Fischer, Deb [R-NE]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$144,300

25 donors

PACs

$3,000

Organizations

$9,300

Committees

Individuals

$132,000

REPUBLICAN MAIN STREET PAC

1 transaction

$3,000

CHEROKEE NATION

1 transaction

$3,300

MISSISSIPPI BAND OF CHOCTAW INDIANS

1 transaction

$2,500

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

2 transactions

$2,000

JTM CONSULTING LLC

1 transaction

$1,000

ERROTABERE RANCHES

1 transaction

$500

No committee contributions found

ERGEN, CHARLES

2 transactions

$13,200

BRAUER, BLACKFORD

1 transaction

$6,600

ERGEN, CANTEY

1 transaction

$6,600

MARQUIS, ALEXANDER

1 transaction

$6,600

MARQUIS, BENJAMIN

1 transaction

$6,600

MARQUIS, DARRELL L.

1 transaction

$6,600

MARQUIS, DUSTIN

1 transaction

$6,600

MARQUIS, JASON

1 transaction

$6,600

MARQUIS, THOMAS

1 transaction

$6,600

MCMAHON, LINDA

1 transaction

$6,600

STEPHENS, WARREN

1 transaction

$6,600

DETOLEDO, PHILIP

1 transaction

$6,600

SINGER, PAUL

1 transaction

$6,600

SCHWAB, CHARLES

1 transaction

$6,600

FRALIN, H. HEYWOOD

1 transaction

$6,600

MCKEE, JACK C.

1 transaction

$6,600

DAVIDSON, CHARLES

1 transaction

$6,600

JACOBS, JOSEPH

1 transaction

$6,600

TAYLOR, BRUCE

1 transaction

$6,600

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 7 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Sen. Gillibrand, Kirsten E. [D-NY]

ID: G000555

Top Contributors

ONEIDA INDIAN NATION

OrganizationONEIDA, NY

$3,300

Mar 29, 2023

ONEIDA INDIAN NATION

OrganizationONEIDA, NY

$3,300

Mar 29, 2023

THE CHICKASAW NATION

OrganizationADA, OK

$3,000

Mar 15, 2024

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$600

Jun 22, 2023

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$400

Jun 22, 2023

STRICKLER, DANIEL B. JR.

BEECHTREE CAPITAL PARTNERS INC. • INVESTMENTS

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$6,200

Mar 24, 2023

ROSENWALD, E. JOHN JR.

JP MORGAN • VICE CHAIRMAN

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$5,800

Oct 16, 2023

ROSENWALD, E. JOHN JR.

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$5,800

Nov 3, 2023

VENNERBERG, VAUGHN II

XTO ENERGY INC • PRESIDENT

IndividualDALLAS, TX

$5,800

Mar 14, 2023

VENNERBERG, VAUGHN II

IndividualDALLAS, TX

$5,800

Mar 27, 2023

Sen. Collins, Susan M. [R-ME]

ID: C001035

Top Contributors

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

PACPRIOR LAKE, MN

$1,000

Jun 28, 2023

SILBEY, ALEXANDER

ATS COMMUNICATIONS, INC, • CONSULTANT

IndividualWASHINGTON, DC

$6,600

Jul 23, 2024

ARNOLD, LAURA

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualHOUSTON, TX

$6,600

Aug 10, 2024

READ, KURT

RSF PARTNERS • PARTNER

IndividualDALLAS, TX

$3,300

Dec 29, 2023

COATES, CHRIS

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualIRVING, TX

$3,300

Dec 29, 2023

READ, KURT

RSF PARTNERS • PARTNER

IndividualDALLAS, TX

$3,300

Dec 29, 2023

CROTTY, THOMAS

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualSCOTTSDALE, AZ

$3,300

Dec 29, 2023

COATES, CHRIS

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualIRVING, TX

$3,300

Dec 29, 2023

CROTTY, THOMAS

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualSCOTTSDALE, AZ

$3,300

Dec 29, 2023

YOUNGMAN, ANDREW

CITIZENS DISABILITY LLC • CEO

IndividualWEST NEWTON, MA

$3,300

Nov 20, 2023

Sen. Hickenlooper, John W. [D-CO]

ID: H000273

Top Contributors

THE CHICKASAW NATION

OrganizationADA, OK

$1,300

Dec 12, 2023

THE CHICKASAW NATION

OrganizationADA, OK

$1,200

Dec 12, 2023

THE CHICKASAW NATION

OrganizationADA, OK

$900

Dec 31, 2023

ALLHASSANI, MEHDI

PALANTIR TECHNOLOGIES • OPERATIONS

IndividualPALO ALTO, CA

$3,300

Nov 25, 2023

SANKAR, SHYAM

PALANTIR TECHNOLOGIES • DIRECTOR

IndividualGREENWOOD VILLAGE, CO

$3,300

Nov 25, 2023

CARSON, RUSSELL

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$3,300

Nov 17, 2023

SANKAR, SHYAM

PALANTIR TECHNOLOGIES • DIRECTOR

IndividualGREENWOOD VILLAGE, CO

$3,300

Nov 25, 2023

CARSON, RUSSELL

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$3,300

Nov 17, 2023

GATES, WILLIAM H. III

BILL & MELINDA GATES FOUNDATION • PHILANTHROPIST

IndividualREDMOND, WA

$3,300

Oct 19, 2023

JAIN, AKASH

PALANTIR TECHNOLOGIES • EXECUTIVE

IndividualOAKLAND, CA

$3,300

Nov 26, 2023

Sen. Kelly, Mark [D-AZ]

ID: K000377

Top Contributors

PASCUA YAQUI TRIBE

OrganizationTUCSON, AZ

$3,300

Oct 23, 2023

THE CHICKASAW NATION

OrganizationADA, OK

$2,500

May 23, 2024

GILA RIVER INDIAN COMMUNITY

OrganizationSACATON, AZ

$1,000

Jun 15, 2023

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$1,000

Aug 12, 2024

CORMIER, STEPHEN

IndividualMANSFIELD, LA

$6,000

Dec 31, 2023

LEWIS, PAUL

NOT EMPLOYED • RETIRED

IndividualKINGMAN, AZ

$5,000

Oct 23, 2024

LEWIS, PAUL

IndividualKINGMAN, AZ

$5,000

Dec 6, 2024

BASS, JOSEPH P

NOT EMPLOYED • RETIRED

IndividualPORTLAND, OR

$5,000

Mar 29, 2024

PEROT, MARGOT B

NOT EMPLOYED • RETIRED

IndividualDALLAS, TX

$5,000

Apr 8, 2024

MILLER, JUDITH

IndividualINDIANAPOLIS, IN

$5,000

Sep 11, 2024

Sen. Britt, Katie Boyd [R-AL]

ID: B001319

Top Contributors

POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS

OrganizationATMORE, AL

$3,300

Sep 14, 2023

POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS

OrganizationATMORE, AL

$3,300

Oct 11, 2024

CHEROKEE NATION

OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK

$2,500

Oct 29, 2024

HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP

OrganizationRICHMOND, VA

$1,000

Jul 25, 2024

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$1,000

May 1, 2024

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$1,000

Nov 9, 2023

STRONG, MIRANDA

CALISTA • DIRECTOR OF GOVERNMENT RELATIONS

IndividualANCHORAGE, AK

$5,000

Sep 20, 2023

STEPHENS, TYLER

FIERCE GOVERNMENT RELATIONS • LOBBYIST

IndividualWASHINGTON, DC

$3,300

Jul 1, 2023

SINGER, PAUL

ELLIOTT INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT • CO-CEO, CO-CIO, PRESIDENT

IndividualPALM BEACH, FL

$3,300

Jul 6, 2023

SINGER, PAUL

ELLIOTT INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT • CO-CEO, CO-CIO, PRESIDENT

IndividualPALM BEACH, FL

$3,300

Jul 9, 2023

Sen. Fetterman, John [D-PA]

ID: F000479

Top Contributors

CHEROKEE NATION

OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK

$2,000

Feb 9, 2024

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$1,000

Nov 29, 2023

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$1,000

Jun 18, 2024

SIMMS, RONALD

RONALD SIMMS REAL ESTATE • PRINCIPAL

IndividualBEVERLY HILLS, CA

$6,700

Jun 18, 2024

SIMMS, RONALD

IndividualBEVERLY HILLS, CA

$3,400

Aug 15, 2024

ADLERSTEIN, ARI

SELF EMPLOYED • FINANCIAL ADVISOR

IndividualMERION STATION, PA

$3,300

Dec 12, 2024

GOLDMAN, AMIR

SUSQUEHANNA INTERNATIONAL GROUP • VENTURE CAPITALIST

IndividualBALA CYNWYD, PA

$3,300

Oct 6, 2024

GOLDMAN, AMIR

SUSQUEHANNA INTERNATIONAL GROUP • VENTURE CAPITALIST

IndividualBALA CYNWYD, PA

$3,300

Oct 6, 2024

LEPRINO, TERRY

LEPRINO FOODS • OWNER

IndividualDENVER, CO

$3,300

Nov 1, 2024

MAYER, ABRAHAM

AFTON PROPERTIES • PRINCIPAL

IndividualLOS ANGELES, CA

$3,300

Dec 12, 2024

Sen. Ricketts, Pete [R-NE]

ID: R000618

Top Contributors

SPIKE OCOTILLO LLC

OrganizationCHANDLER, AZ

$2,500

Mar 4, 2024

HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP

OrganizationRICHMOND, VA

$1,000

Mar 28, 2024

KING & SPALDING LLP

OrganizationATLANTA, GA

$1,000

Mar 29, 2024

GREENBERG TRAURIG

OrganizationALBANY, NY

$1,000

Apr 23, 2024

H.A. TRUE, III

OrganizationCASPER, WY

$1,000

Aug 22, 2024

DELTA AIRLINES

OrganizationATLANTA, GA

$234

Apr 17, 2023

VANDERSLOOT, BELINDA

SELF • HOMEMAKER

IndividualIDAHO FALLS, ID

$6,600

Mar 4, 2024

VANDERSLOOT, FRANK

MELALEUCA • OWNER

IndividualIDAHO FALLS, ID

$6,600

Mar 4, 2024

MANDELBLATT, DANIELLE

RETIRED

IndividualASPEN, CO

$6,600

Jun 7, 2024

MANDELBLATT, ERIC

SOROBAN CAPITAL PARTNERS LP • MANAGING PARTNER

IndividualASPEN, CO

$6,600

Jun 7, 2024

Donor Network - Sen. Fischer, Deb [R-NE]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

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

Showing 69 nodes and 73 connections

Total contributions: $73

Top Donors - Sen. Fischer, Deb [R-NE]

Showing top 25 donors by contribution amount

1 PAC5 Orgs19 Individuals

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 3 helped.

+Construction & Engineeringconfidence 0.85
Section 12(f)(4) authorizes facilities subgrants for remodeling, renovation, repair, construction, permanent improvement, or major renovation of buildings or facilities used for direct child care services. This directly benefits construction and engineering firms that would perform such work, as it creates demand for their services in the child care sector.
+For-Profit Education & Student Loansconfidence 0.80
Section 12 adds a new Part II for Child Care Supply and Facilities Grants, which includes grants to States, territories, Indian Tribes, and Tribal organizations to expand the supply and capacity of qualified child care providers and staff. This could benefit for-profit child care providers (which fall under for-profit education) by providing funding for startup, expansion, and facilities improvements, thereby increasing their business opportunities.
+Long-Term Care & Nursing Homesconfidence 0.60
Section 3(a)(3)(C) adds to the definition of 'eligible child' a child who resides with a parent who is more than 65 years of age. This expands eligibility to include children living with elderly parents, potentially increasing demand for child care services that could be provided by long-term care facilities offering intergenerational programs, though the connection is indirect.

Who funds the sponsor on these industries

For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Sen. Fischer, Deb [R-NE])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

Construction & Engineering$3,300
from 1 contribution
- LANOHA, RICHARD$3,300

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 Health and Human Services

Moderate

Vector: 65%

Pages: 533-535AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The Child Care Modernization Act of 2025 focuses on expanding access to and improving the quality of child care for low-income families, which aligns with Project 2025's broader emphasis on strengthening families and supporting early childhood development, though it does not directly reference or implement specific Project 2025 child care proposals."

Key themes:early childhood developmentfamily supportchild care accessquality improvementlow-income assistance

— 501 — Department of Health and Human Services 54. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Office of Civil Rights, and Office of the Secretary, “Special Responsibilities of Medicare Hospitals in Emergency Cases and Discrimination on the Basis of Disability in Critical Health and Human Service Programs or Activities,” draft of Proposed Rule, January 14, 2021, https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/infants-nprm.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 55. H.R. 26, Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, 118th Congress, introduced January 9, 2023, https:// www.congress.gov/118/bills/hr26/BILLS-118hr26pcs.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 56. H.R. 7, No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act of 2023, 118th Congress, introduced January 9, 2023, https://www.congress.gov/118/bills/hr7/BILLS-118hr7ih.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 57. S. 401, Conscience Protection Act of 2021, 117th Congress, introduced February 24, 2021, https://www.congress. gov/117/bills/s401/BILLS-117s401is.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 58. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and Office of the Secretary, “Nondiscrimination in Health Programs and Activities,” Notice of Proposed Rulemaking; Notice of Tribal Consultation, Federal Register, Vol. 87, No. 149 (August 4, 2022), pp. 47824–47920, https://www.govinfo. gov/content/pkg/FR-2022-08-04/pdf/2022-16217.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 59. Ibid., p. 47916. 60. The regulation was not finalized before the end of the Administration. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Services, “Revision of Categorical Eligibility in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP),” Proposed Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 142 (July 24, 2019), pp. 35570–55581, https:// www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/07/24/2019-15670/revision-of-categorical-eligibility-in-the- supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program-snap (accessed March 17, 2023). 61. 45 Code of Federal Regulations § 75.300(c) and (d), https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-45/subtitle-A/ subchapter-A/part-75/subpart-D/subject-group-ECFR911e5e1a30bfbcb/section-75.300 (accessed March 17, 2023). 62. H.R. 1750, Child Welfare Provider Inclusion Act of 2021, 117th Congress, introduced March 10, 2021, https:// www.congress.gov/117/bills/hr1750/BILLS-117hr1750ih.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023), and S. 656, Child Welfare Provider Inclusion Act of 2021, 117th Congress, introduced March 10, 2021, https://www.congress.gov/117/bills/ s656/BILLS-117s656is.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 63. S. 3949, Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2022, Public Law No. 117-348, 117th Congress, January 25, 2023, https://www.congress.gov/117/plaws/publ348/PLAW-117publ348.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 64. Kelsey Y. Santamaria, “Child Migrants at the Border: The Flores Settlement Agreement and Other Legal Developments,” Congressional Research Service In Focus No. IF11799, April 1, 2021, https://crsreports.congress. gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11799 (accessed March 17, 2023). 65. Report, Building a Happy Home: Marriage Education as a Tool to Strengthen Families, Social Capital Project Report No. 1-22, March 2022, p. 17, https://www.jec.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/3d102525-6f0d-48ed- 92f4-d71edd468ad6/building-a-happy-home.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). The cover of the report reflects that the Social Capital Project is “[a] project of the Joint Economic Committee – Republicans.” 66. See, for example, Alan J. Hawkins, “Are Federally Supported Relationship Education Programs for Lower-Income Individuals and Couples Working? A Review of Evaluation Research,” American Enterprise Institute, September 2019, https://www. congress.gov/117/plaws/publ228/PLAW-117publ228.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 67. H.R. 8404, Respect for Marriage Act, Public Law No. 117-228, 117th Congress, December 13, 2022, https://www. congress.gov/117/plaws/publ228/PLAW-117publ228.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 68. Madison Marino, “Over 1,000 Safety Violations Mar Head Start. Children Deserve Better,” Heritage Foundation Commentary, November 10, 2022, https://www.heritage.org/education/commentary/over-1000-safety- violations-mar-head-start-children-deserve-better. 69. American Hospital Association v. Becerra, 596 U.S. ___ (2022), https://www.supremecourt.gov/ opinions/21pdf/20-1114_09m1.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 70. U.S. Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service; U.S. Department of Labor, Employee Benefits Security Administration; and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, “Coverage of Certain Preventive Services Under the Affordable Care Act,” Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Federal Register, Vol. 88, No. 22 (February 2, 2023), pp. 7236–7281, https://www. govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2023-02-02/pdf/2023-01981.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). — 502 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 71. 42 U.S. Code § 238n, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/238n (accessed March 17, 2023). 72. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Health Resources and Services Administration, “Early Childhood Health,” last reviewed October 2022, https://mchb.hrsa.gov/programs-impact/focus-areas/early- childhood-health (accessed March 17, 2023). 73. American Pregnancy Association, “Having a Doula—What Are the Benefits?” https://americanpregnancy. org/healthy-pregnancy/labor-and-birth/having-a-doula/#:~:text=Other%20studies%20have%20shown%20 that%20having%20a%20doula,massage%20to%20reduce%20stress%20and%20anxiety%20during%20labor (accessed March 17, 2023). 74. S. 2372, VA MISSION [Maintaining Internal Systems and Strengthening Integrated Outside Networks] Act of 2018, Public Law No. 115-182, 115th Congress, June 6, 2018, https://www.congress.gov/115/plaws/publ182/ PLAW-115publ182.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 75. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, “Securing Updated and Necessary Statutory Evaluations Timely,” Final Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 11 (January 19, 2021), pp. 5694–5764, https://www.govinfo. gov/content/pkg/FR-2021-01-19/pdf/2021-00597.pdf (accessed March 22, 2023). 76. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Secretary, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, “Compliance with Statutory Program Integrity Requirements,” Final Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 42 (March 4, 2029), pp. 7714–7791, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-03-04/pdf/2019-03461.pdf (accessed March 18, 2023). 77. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Secretary, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, “Ensuring Access to Equitable, Affordable, Client-Centered, Quality Family Planning Services,” Final Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 192 (October 7, 2021), pp. 56144–56180, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/ pkg/FR-2021-10-07/pdf/2021-21542.pdf (accessed March 18, 2023). 78. S. 624, Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act, 118th Congress, introduced March 2, 2023, https://www. congress.gov/118/bills/s624/BILLS-118s624is.pdf (accessed March 18, 2023). 79. 50 U.S. Code Chapter 55, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/chapter-55 (accessed March 22, 2023). 80. 18 U.S. Code § 13, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/13 (accessed March 18, 2023). 81. Bowen v. American Hospital Association, 476 U.S. 610 (1986), https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/ usrep/usrep476/usrep476610/usrep476610.pdf (accessed 22, 2023). 82. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Secretary, “Notification of Interpretation and Enforcement of Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972,” Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 99 (May 25, 2021), pp. 27984–27985, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR- 2021-05-25/pdf/2021-10477.pdf (accessed March 18, 2023). 83. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office for Civil Rights, “HHS Notice and Guidance on Gender Affirming Care, Civil Rights, and Patient Privacy,” March 2, 2022, https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/hhs- ocr-notice-and-guidance-gender-affirming-care.pdf (accessed March 18, 2023). 84. Heckler v. Chaney, 420 U.S. 821 (1985), https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/470/821.html (accessed March 18, 2022). 85. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office for Civil Rights, “Guidance to Nation’s Retail Pharmacies: Obligations Under Federal Civil Rights Laws to Ensure Access to Comprehensive Reproductive Health Care Services,” content last reviewed July 14, 2022, https://www.hhs.gov/civil-rights/for-individuals/ special-topics/reproductive-healthcare/pharmacies-guidance/index.html (accessed March 18, 2023). 86. H.R. 3103, “Health Insurance and Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, Public Law No. 104-191, 104th Congress, August 21, 1996, https://www.congress.gov/104/plaws/publ191/PLAW-104publ191.pdf (accessed March 18, 2023). 87. U.S. Department of Human Services, “HIPAA Privacy Rule and Disclosures of Information Relating to Reproductive Health Care,” content last reviewed June 29, 2022, (accessed March 18, 2023). See also “Protecting the Privacy and Security of Your Health Information When Using Your Personal Cell Phone or Tablet,” content last reviewed June 29, 2022, https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/privacy/guidance/ cell-phone-hipaa/index.html (accessed March 18, 2023).

Department of Health and Human Services

Weak

Vector: 65%

Pages: 533-535AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The Child Care Modernization Act focuses on expanding access to and improving the quality of child care for low-income families, while the Project 2025 HHS section emphasizes Medicaid reform, abortion policy, and health care regulations with no mention of child care or early childhood development. There is minimal thematic overlap between the two."

Key themes:Department of Health and Human Serviceslow-income familieshealth and safety standards

— 500 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 32. Owcharenko Schaefer, “Medicaid at 55: Understanding the Design, Trends, and Reforms Needed to Improve the Health Care Safety Net.” 33. Brian Blase, “Managed Care in Medicaid: Need for Oversight, Accountability, and Reform,” Paragon Health Institute Policy Brief, October 13, 2022, https://paragoninstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/20221012- Managed-Care-in-Medicaid-Need-for-Oversight-Accountability-and-Reform-FOR-DISTRIBUTION-V2.pdf (accessed February 13, 2023). 34. Owcharenko Schaefer, “Medicaid at 55: Understanding the Design, Trends, and Reforms Needed to Improve the Health Care Safety Net.” 35. 42 U.S. Code § 1315, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1315 (accessed March 17, 2023). 36. Chad D. Savage and Lee S. Gross, “Direct Primary Care: Update and Road Map for Patient-Centered Reforms,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 3635, June 28, 2021, https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/ files/2021-06/BG3635.pdf. 37. H.R. 133, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, Public Law No. 116-260, 116th Congress, December 27, 2020, Division BB, Title I, https://www.congress.gov/116/plaws/publ260/PLAW-116publ260.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 38. Doug Badger, “On Surprise Medical Bills, Congress Should Side with Consumers, Not Special Interests,” Heritage Foundation Commentary, January 31, 2020, https://www.heritage.org/health-care-reform/ commentary/surprise-medical-bills-congress-should-side-consumers-not-special. 39. Edmund F. Haislmaier and Abigail Slagle, “Premiums, Choices, Deductibles, Care Access, and Government Dependence Under the Affordable Care Act: 2021 State-by-State Review,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 3668, November 2, 2021, https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/2021-11/BG3668.pdf. 40. U.S. Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service; U.S. Department of Labor, Employee Benefits Security Administration; and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, “Transparency in Coverage,” Final Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 85, No. 219 (November 12, 2020), pp. 72158–72310, https://www.govinfo.gov/ content/pkg/FR-2020-11-12/pdf/2020-24591.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 41. David N. Bernstein and Robert E. Moffit, “New Price Transparency Rule Will Help Transform America’s Health Care System,” Heritage Foundation Commentary, November 1, 2020, https://www.heritage.org/health-care- reform/commentary/new-price-transparency-rule-will-help-transform-americas-health-care. 42. Sluzala and Haislmaier, “Lessons from COVID-19: How Policymakers Should Reform the Regulation of Clinical Testing.” 43. Ibid. 44. Most recently enacted in H.R. 2471, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022, Public Law No. 117-103, 117th Congress, March 15, 2022, Division H, Title V, §§ 506–507, https://www.congress.gov/117/plaws/publ103/ PLAW-117publ103.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 45. President Joseph R. Biden Jr., Executive Order 14079, “Securing Access to Reproductive and Other Healthcare Services,” August 3, 2022, in Federal Register, Vol. 87, No. 154 (August 11, 2022), pp. 49505–49507, https:// www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2022-08-11/pdf/2022-17420.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 46. Planned Parenthood, 2020–2021 Annual Report, p. 27, https://www.plannedparenthood.org/uploads/ filer_public/40/8f/408fc2ad-c8c2-48da-ad87-be5cc257d370/211214-ppfa-annualreport-20-21-c3-digital.pdf (accessed March 22, 2023). 47. Ibid., pp. 30 and 31. Total revenue of $1,714.4 million (p. 30) minus $1,580.7 million in total expenses (p. 31) yields $133,7 million. 48. Ibid., p. 28. 49. Ibid., p. 30. 50. H.R. 372, Protecting Life and Taxpayers Act of 2023, 118th Congress, introduced January 17, 2023, https://www. congress.gov/118/bills/hr372/BILLS-118hr372ih.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 51. 42 U.S. Code § 18023, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/18023 (accessed March 17, 2023). 52. H.R. 3128, Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985, Public Law No. 99-272, 99th Congress, April 7, 1986, Title IX, Subtitle A, Part 1, Subpart B, § 9121, https://www.congress.gov/99/statute/STATUTE-100/ STATUTE-100-Pg82.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 53. H.R. 8070, Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Public Law No. 93-112, 93rd Congress, September 26, 1973, https://www. congress.gov/93/statute/STATUTE-87/STATUTE-87-Pg355.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). — 501 — Department of Health and Human Services 54. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Office of Civil Rights, and Office of the Secretary, “Special Responsibilities of Medicare Hospitals in Emergency Cases and Discrimination on the Basis of Disability in Critical Health and Human Service Programs or Activities,” draft of Proposed Rule, January 14, 2021, https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/infants-nprm.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 55. H.R. 26, Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, 118th Congress, introduced January 9, 2023, https:// www.congress.gov/118/bills/hr26/BILLS-118hr26pcs.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 56. H.R. 7, No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act of 2023, 118th Congress, introduced January 9, 2023, https://www.congress.gov/118/bills/hr7/BILLS-118hr7ih.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 57. S. 401, Conscience Protection Act of 2021, 117th Congress, introduced February 24, 2021, https://www.congress. gov/117/bills/s401/BILLS-117s401is.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 58. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and Office of the Secretary, “Nondiscrimination in Health Programs and Activities,” Notice of Proposed Rulemaking; Notice of Tribal Consultation, Federal Register, Vol. 87, No. 149 (August 4, 2022), pp. 47824–47920, https://www.govinfo. gov/content/pkg/FR-2022-08-04/pdf/2022-16217.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 59. Ibid., p. 47916. 60. The regulation was not finalized before the end of the Administration. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Services, “Revision of Categorical Eligibility in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP),” Proposed Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 142 (July 24, 2019), pp. 35570–55581, https:// www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/07/24/2019-15670/revision-of-categorical-eligibility-in-the- supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program-snap (accessed March 17, 2023). 61. 45 Code of Federal Regulations § 75.300(c) and (d), https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-45/subtitle-A/ subchapter-A/part-75/subpart-D/subject-group-ECFR911e5e1a30bfbcb/section-75.300 (accessed March 17, 2023). 62. H.R. 1750, Child Welfare Provider Inclusion Act of 2021, 117th Congress, introduced March 10, 2021, https:// www.congress.gov/117/bills/hr1750/BILLS-117hr1750ih.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023), and S. 656, Child Welfare Provider Inclusion Act of 2021, 117th Congress, introduced March 10, 2021, https://www.congress.gov/117/bills/ s656/BILLS-117s656is.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 63. S. 3949, Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2022, Public Law No. 117-348, 117th Congress, January 25, 2023, https://www.congress.gov/117/plaws/publ348/PLAW-117publ348.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 64. Kelsey Y. Santamaria, “Child Migrants at the Border: The Flores Settlement Agreement and Other Legal Developments,” Congressional Research Service In Focus No. IF11799, April 1, 2021, https://crsreports.congress. gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11799 (accessed March 17, 2023). 65. Report, Building a Happy Home: Marriage Education as a Tool to Strengthen Families, Social Capital Project Report No. 1-22, March 2022, p. 17, https://www.jec.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/3d102525-6f0d-48ed- 92f4-d71edd468ad6/building-a-happy-home.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). The cover of the report reflects that the Social Capital Project is “[a] project of the Joint Economic Committee – Republicans.” 66. See, for example, Alan J. Hawkins, “Are Federally Supported Relationship Education Programs for Lower-Income Individuals and Couples Working? A Review of Evaluation Research,” American Enterprise Institute, September 2019, https://www. congress.gov/117/plaws/publ228/PLAW-117publ228.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 67. H.R. 8404, Respect for Marriage Act, Public Law No. 117-228, 117th Congress, December 13, 2022, https://www. congress.gov/117/plaws/publ228/PLAW-117publ228.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 68. Madison Marino, “Over 1,000 Safety Violations Mar Head Start. Children Deserve Better,” Heritage Foundation Commentary, November 10, 2022, https://www.heritage.org/education/commentary/over-1000-safety- violations-mar-head-start-children-deserve-better. 69. American Hospital Association v. Becerra, 596 U.S. ___ (2022), https://www.supremecourt.gov/ opinions/21pdf/20-1114_09m1.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 70. U.S. Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service; U.S. Department of Labor, Employee Benefits Security Administration; and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, “Coverage of Certain Preventive Services Under the Affordable Care Act,” Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Federal Register, Vol. 88, No. 22 (February 2, 2023), pp. 7236–7281, https://www. govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2023-02-02/pdf/2023-01981.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023).

Department of Health and Human Services

Weak

Vector: 64%

Pages: 530-532AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill expands federal child care assistance and eligibility, whereas Project 2025’s HHS agenda generally seeks to limit federal spending, impose work requirements, and increase state flexibility with less expansive benefits. Both address child care for low‑income families, but the policy directions diverge."

Key themes:child care assistancelow‑income familiesDepartment of Health and Human Servicesparental choicequality standards

— 498 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise ENDNOTES 1. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Strategic Plan, FY 2018–2022, p. 50, https://aspe.hhs.gov/ sites/default/files/documents/feac346aca967bfadc446398679e14ec/hhs-strategic-plan-fy-2018-2022.pdf (accessed February 7, 2023). 2. “Strategic Goal 1: Protect and Strengthen Equitable Access to High Quality and Affordable Healthcare” in ibid. “In the context of HHS, this Strategic Plan adopts the definition of underserved communities listed in Executive Order 13985: Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities through the Federal Government to refer to ‘populations sharing a particular characteristic, as well as geographic communities, who have been systematically denied a full opportunity to participate in aspects of economic, social, and civic life’; this definition includes individuals who belong to underserved communities that have been denied such treatment, such as Black, Latino, and Indigenous and Native American persons, Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders and other persons of color; members of religious minorities; lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ+) persons; persons with disabilities; persons who live in rural areas; and persons otherwise adversely affected by persistent poverty or inequality. Individuals may belong to more than one underserved community and face intersecting barriers. This definition applies to the terms underserved communities and underserved populations throughout this Strategic Plan.” Ibid. Emphasis in original. 3. Karen Weintraub, “Americans’ Life Expectancy Continues to Fall, Erasing Health Gains of the Last Quarter Century,” USA Today, December 22, 2022, https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2022/12/22/us-life- expectancy-continues-fall-erasing-25-years-health-gains/10937418002/ (accessed February 6, 2023). 4. Apoorva Mandavilli, “The C.D.C. Isn’t Publishing Large Portions of the Data It Collects,” The New York Times, updated February 22, 2022, https://www.congress.gov/117/meeting/house/114450/documents/HHRG-117- IF02-20220302-SD004.pdf (accessed March 22, 2023). 5. Zachary B. Sluzala and Edmund F. Haislmaier, “Lessons from COVID-19: How Policymakers Should Reform the Regulation of Clinical Testing,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 3696, March 28, 2022, https://www. heritage.org/public-health/report/lessons-covid-19-how-policymakers-should-reform-the-regulation-clinical. 6. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (C),” https://www.cdc.gov/maso/pdf/cdcmiss.pdf (March 16, 2023). 7. Judith Garber, “CDC ‘Disclaimers’ Hide Financial Conflicts of Interest,” Lown Institute Accountability Blog, November 6, 2019, https://lowninstitute.org/cdc-disclaimers-hide-financial-conflicts-of-interest/ (accessed February 6, 2023). See also U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “CDC Foundation Active Programs (October 1, 2014–September 30, 2015),” https://www. cdcfoundation.org/sites/default/files/upload/pdf/CDCFoundation-ActivePrograms-FY2015.pdf (accessed February 7, 2023); “CDC Active Programs (October 1, 2015–September 30, 2016),” https://www.cdcfoundation. org/sites/default/files/upload/pdf/CDCFoundation-ActivePrograms-FY2016.pdf (accessed February 7, 2023); “CDC Foundation Active Programs (October 1, 2016–September 30, 2017),” https://www.cdcfoundation.org/ sites/default/files/upload/pdf/CDCFoundation-ActivePrograms-FY2017.pdf (accessed February 7, 2023); “CDC Foundation Active Programs (October 1, 2017–September 30, 2018),” https://www.cdcfoundation.org/sites/default/ files/upload/pdf/CDCFoundation-ActivePrograms-FY2018.pdf (accessed February 7, 2023); “CDC Foundation Active Programs, October 1, 2018–September 30, 2019,” https://www.cdcfoundation.org/sites/default/files/upload/ pdf/CDCFoundation-ActivePrograms-FY2019.pdf (accessed February 7, 2023); “CDC Foundation Active Programs, October 1, 2029–September 30, 2020,” https://www.cdcfoundation.org/CDCF-ActivePrograms-CDC-FY20?inline (accessed February 7, 2023); and “CDC Foundation Active Programs, October 1, 2020–September 30, 2021,” https://www.cdcfoundation.org/CDCF-ActivePrograms-CDC-FY21?inline (accessed February 7, 2023). 8. Joel White and Doug Badger, “In Order to Defeat COVID-19, the Federal Government Must Modernize Its Public Health Data,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 3527, September 3, 2020, https://www.heritage. org/sites/default/files/2020-09/BG3527_0.pdf. 9. S. 15, Ensuring Accurate and Complete Abortion Data Reporting Act of 2023, 118th Congress, introduced January 23, 2023, https://www.congress.gov/118/bills/s15/BILLS-118s15is.pdf (accessed March 22, 2023), and H.R. 632, Ensuring Accurate and Complete Abortion Data Reporting Act of 2023, 118th Congress, introduced January 30, 2023, https://www.congress.gov/118/bills/hr632/BILLS-118hr632ih.pdf (accessed March 22, 2023). 10. Doug Badger, “How Congress Can Make Real Progress on Drug Prices,” Heritage Foundation Issue Brief No. 5016, December 9, 2019, https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/2019-12/IB5016_1.pdf. — 499 — Department of Health and Human Services 11. Sluzala and Haislmaier, “Lessons From COVID-19: How Policymakers Should Reform the Regulation of Clinical Testing.” 12. Ibid. 13. H.R. 5471, Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988, Public Law No. 100-578, 100th Congress, October 31, 1988, https://uscode.house.gov/statutes/pl/100/578.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 14. Sluzala and Haislmaier, “Lessons From COVID-19: How Policymakers Should Reform the Regulation of Clinical Testing.” 15. Edmund F. Haislmaier, “Ensuring Americans’ Access to Pharmaceuticals: A Primer and Road Map for Policymakers,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 3545, October 20, 2020, https://www.heritage.org/ sites/default/files/2020-10/BG3545.pdf. 16. 18 U.S.C. 1461, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1461 (accessed March 16, 2023), and 18 U.S.C. 1462, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1462 (accessed March 16, 2023). 17. H.R. 1308, Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, Public Law No. 103-141, 103rd Congress, November 16, 1993, https://www.congress.gov/103/statute/STATUTE-107/STATUTE-107-Pg1488.pdf (accessed March 18, 2023). 18. Charles Piller, “Is FDA’s Revolving Door Open Too Wide?” Science, Vol. 361, No. 6397 (July 6, 2018), p. 21, https://www.science.org/doi/epdf/10.1126/science.361.6397.21 (accessed February 6, 2023). 19. Joel Achenbach, “NIH Halts $100 Million Study of Moderate Drinking That Is Funded by Alcohol Industry,” The Washington Post, May 17, 2018, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2018/05/17/nih- halts-controversial-study-of-moderate-drinking/ (accessed February 6, 2023). 20. Alexander Tin, “Moderna Offers NIH Co-ownership of COVID Vaccine Patent amid Dispute with Government,” CBS News, November 15, 2021, https://www.cbsnews.com/news/moderna-covid-vaccine-patent-dispute- national-institutes-health/ (accessed February 6, 2023). 21. Informed Consent Action Network, “NIH Officials Profiting from COVID-19 Vaccine,” June 3, 2021, https://www. icandecide.org/nih-officials-profiting-from-covid-19-vaccine/ (accessed February 6, 2023). 22. Adam Andrzejewski, “Substack Investigation: Fauci’s Royalties and the $350 Million Royalty Payment Stream HIDDEN by NIH,” Open the Books Substack, May 9, 2022, https://openthebooks.substack. com/p/faucis-royalties-and-the-350-million?utm_source=/profile/24758236-adam-andrzejewski&utm_ medium=reader2&s=w (accessed February 6, 2023). 23. Robert E. Moffit, “Time to Reverse Hospital Market Consolidation,” Heritage Foundation Commentary, January 5, 2022, https://www.heritage.org/health-care-reform/commentary/time-reverse-hospital-market-consolidation. 24. H.R. 3590, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Public Law No. 111-148, 111th Congress, March 23, 2021, https://www.congress.gov/111/plaws/publ148/PLAW-111publ148.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 25. Brian J. Miller, Robert E. Moffit, James Ficke, Joseph Marine, and Jesse Ehrenfeld, “Reversing Hospital Consolidation: The Promise of Physician-Owned Hospitals,” Health Affairs Forefront, April 12, 2021, https:// www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/forefront.20210408.980640/ (accessed February 13, 2023). 26. Robert E. Moffit, “Medicare’s Future: Challenges and Opportunities,” testimony before the Special Committee on Aging, U.S. Senate, November 21, 2022, https://www.heritage.org/testimony/medicares-future-challenges- and-opportunities. 27. 42 U.S. Code § 256b, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/256b (accessed March 16, 2023). 28. H.R. 3590, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, § 3022. 29. H.R. 5376, Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, Public Law No. 117-169, 117th Congress, August 16, 2022, https:// www.congress.gov/117/plaws/publ169/PLAW-117publ169.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 30. Robert E. Moffit, “Reducing Patient Access to New Medications Is the Left’s Latest Medicare Price-Fixing Scheme,” Heritage Foundation Commentary, July 22, 2022, https://www.heritage.org/medicare/commentary/ reducing-patient-access-new-medications-the-lefts-latest-medicare-price-fixing, and Badger, “How Congress Can Make Real Progress on Drug Prices.” 31. Nina Owcharenko Schaefer, “Medicaid at 55: Understanding the Design, Trends, and Reforms Needed to Improve the Health Care Safety Net,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 3604, April 14, 2021, https:// www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/2021-04/BG3604_0.pdf, and Brian C. Blase, “Punishing Conservative States: Payment Cuts to Hospitals Where Federal Spending Is Already Low,” Paragon Health Institute, December 2021, https://paragoninstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Punishing-Conservative-States- HTML.html (accessed February 13, 2023).

Department of Health and Human Services

Weak

Vector: 64%

Pages: 497-499AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"Both the bill and the Project 2025 HHS section aim to increase choice/flexibility and improve service delivery within HHS-administered programs, but they address different policy areas (child care vs. Medicare/Medicaid) and thus only tangentially align."

Key themes:HHS program reformincreased choice/flexibilitystate-administered federal fundingquality improvement

— 465 — Department of Health and Human Services 1. Make Medicare Advantage the default enrollment option. 2. Give beneficiaries direct control of how they spend Medicare dollars. 3. Remove burdensome policies that micromanage MA plans. 4. Replace the complex formula-based payment model with a competitive bidding model. 5. Reconfigure the current risk adjustment model. 6. Remove restrictions on key benefits and services, including those related to prescription drugs, hospice care, and medical savings account plans.26 Legacy Medicare Reform. Legislation reforming legacy (non-MA) Medicare should: l Base payments on the health status of the patient or intensity of the service rather than where the patient happens to receive that service. l Replace the bureaucrat-driven fee-for-service system with value- based payments to empower patients to find the care that best serves their needs. l Codify price transparency regulations. l Restructure 340B drug subsidies27 toward beneficiaries rather than hospitals. l Repeal harmful health policies enacted under the Obama and Biden Administrations such as the Medicare Shared Savings Program28 and Inflation Reduction Act.29 Medicare Part D Reform. The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) created a drug price negotiation program in Medicare that replaced the existing private-sector negotiations in Part D with government price controls for prescription drugs. These government price controls will limit access to medications and reduce patient access to new medication. This “negotiation” program should be repealed, and reforms in Part D that will have meaningful impact for seniors should be pursued. Other reforms should include eliminating the coverage gap in Part D, reducing the government share in — 466 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise the catastrophic tier, and requiring manufacturers to bear a larger share. Until the IRA is repealed, an Administration that is required to implement it must do so in a way that is prudent with its authority, minimizing the harmful effects of the law’s policies and avoiding even worse unintended consequences.30 Medicaid. Over the past 45 years, Medicaid and the health safety net have evolved into a cumbersome, complicated, and unaffordable burden on nearly every state. The program is failing some of the most vulnerable patients; is a prime target for waste, fraud, and abuse; and is consuming more of state and federal budgets. The dramatic increase in Medicaid expenditures is due in large part to the ACA (Obamacare), which mandates that states must expand their Medicaid eligibility standards to include all individuals at or below 138 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL), and the public health emergency, which has prohibited states from performing basic eligibility reviews. The overlap of available benefits among the various health agencies has led to a complex, confusing system that is nearly impossible to navigate—even for recipients. Recipients are often faced with a “welfare cliff” of benefit losses as they earn above a certain amount, which is contrary to the fundamental purpose of empowering individuals to achieve economic independence. Benefits increasingly involve nonmedical services such as air conditioning and housing, many of which are already handled by departments other than HHS. Improper payments within Medicaid are higher than those of any other federal program. These payments are evidence of the inappropriateness of Medicaid’s expansion, which, stemming largely from public health emergency maintenance of effort (MOE) requirements and the Affordable Care Act, has crowded out the primary targets of these programs: those who are most in need. True health care reform cannot be accomplished in a bureaucratic silo or only through Medicaid and health safety net programs. Reform of the tax code is also essential to genuine, effective reform of our health care system. All components of the health care system should be part of the reform efforts, and it is imperative that the system be modified to assist states with their current programs. Therefore, the next Administration should: l Reform financing. Allow states to have a more flexible, accountable, predictable, transparent, and efficient financing mechanism to deliver medical services. This system should include a more balanced or blended match rate, block grants, aggregate caps, or per capita caps. Any financial system should be designed to encourage and incentivize innovation and the efficient delivery of health care services. Federal and state financial participation in the Medicaid program should be rational, predictable, and reasonable. It should also incentivize states to save money and improve the quality of health care.

Department of Housing and Urban Development

Minimal

Vector: 63%

Pages: 548-550AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The Child Care Modernization Act of 2025 focuses on expanding access to and improving the quality of child care services for low-income families, while the Project 2025 HUD policy section addresses housing market reforms, regulatory streamlining, opposition to DEI/ESG initiatives, 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.

Related Bills

Other Bills by Sen. Fischer, Deb

Secure Space Act of 2025

119/s/1962

She DRIVES Act

119/s/161

Foreign Adversary Communications Transparency Act

119/s/259

Back to All Bills