Shutdown Fairness Act

Download PDF
Bill ID: 119/s/3168
Last Updated: April 29, 2026

Sponsored by

Sen. Johnson, Ron [R-WI]

ID: J000293

Follow the money

The bill

Shutdown Fairness Act

S. 3168, 119th Congress — read as touching Defense Contractors.

The sponsor

Sen. Johnson, Ron [R-WI]

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

The money

$96,068 raised

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

The alignment

55% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Department of Labor and Related Agencies" section, p. 624-626 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Read the second time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 267.

November 9, 2025

Introduced

📍 Current Status

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

🏛️

Committee Review

🗳️

Floor Action

✅

Passed 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

(sigh) Alright, let's get this over with. The Shutdown Fairness Act - a bill so laughably misnamed it's like calling a terminal cancer patient "healthy". This is just another exercise in legislative theater, designed to make politicians look good while they continue to fleece the taxpayer.

First off, the total funding amounts and budget allocations are conveniently vague, because who needs transparency when you're trying to sneak something past the public? The bill appropriates "such sums as are necessary" for standard employee compensation during a lapse in regular appropriations. How delightfully ambiguous. I'm sure it's just a coincidence that this language allows for endless bureaucratic interpretation and abuse.

As for key programs and agencies receiving funds, it's the usual suspects: federal employees, contract workers, and members of the Armed Forces. Because God forbid we actually prioritize funding for things like infrastructure or education - no, let's make sure our bloated bureaucracy is well-fed first.

Notable increases or decreases from previous years? Ha! Don't be ridiculous. This bill is designed to maintain the status quo, not rock the boat. The only increase you'll see is in the number of politicians patting themselves on the back for "supporting" federal employees.

Now, about those riders and policy provisions... (rummages through bill text) Ah yes, here we are: a lovely little section that allows agencies to provide standard employee compensation during a lapse in appropriations. Because what could possibly go wrong with giving bureaucrats carte blanche to spend taxpayer money?

Fiscal impact and deficit implications? (chuckles darkly) Oh boy, this is where it gets good. The Congressional Budget Office will no doubt produce some creative accounting to make this bill seem fiscally responsible, but let's be real - we're talking about a blank check for federal agencies to spend as they see fit. Deficit implications? Who cares? We'll just kick the can down the road and let future generations deal with it.

Diagnosis: This bill is suffering from a severe case of " Politician-itis" - a disease characterized by an inability to prioritize, a love of vague language, and a complete disregard for fiscal responsibility. Treatment: a healthy dose of skepticism, a strong stomach, and a willingness to call out the obvious lies and spin. Prognosis: grim.

Related Topics

Federal Budget & AppropriationsMilitary & Veterans Affairs
Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Sen. Johnson, Ron [R-WI]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions
$96,068
21 donors
PACs
$0
Organizations
$933
Committees
$0
Individuals
$95,135

No PAC contributions found

1
RICHARD & PEGGY LARSEN FARMS
1 transaction
$500
2
SUNSET TRUST
2 transactions
$208
3
SOLE TERRA FARMING
1 transaction
$100
4
M AND M FARMS PARTNERSHIP
1 transaction
$50
5
TORK RENTALS
1 transaction
$50
6
FAITH CHRISTIAN CHURCH
1 transaction
$25

No committee contributions found

1
PECK, JOHN
4 transactions
$27,000
2
TAYLOR, MARGARETTA J.
1 transaction
$6,600
3
MANDELBLATT, DANIELLE
1 transaction
$6,600
4
MANDELBLATT, ERIC
1 transaction
$6,600
5
YANG, JIN
2 transactions
$6,600
6
BROWN, REGINALD J. MR.
2 transactions
$6,600
7
FEUERBACH, JOEL
1 transaction
$5,000
8
STANTON, FREDERICK
1 transaction
$4,800
9
PECK, VERA
1 transaction
$4,500
10
LATZIG, STEVE
1 transaction
$4,000
11
ROEHL, RICHARD
1 transaction
$3,500
12
LUTHER, JOSEPH
1 transaction
$3,435
13
EMERSON, BILL C. MR.
1 transaction
$3,300
14
WILKES, BRUCE
1 transaction
$3,300
15
MINER, JOHN R.
1 transaction
$3,300

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 8 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Sen. Cotton, Tom [R-AR]

ID: C001095

Top Contributors

10

1
WINRED
PACARLINGTON, VA
$1,919
Mar 7, 2024
2
CLARK COUNTY REPUBLICAN COMMITTEE
OrganizationARKADELPHIA, AR
$600
Mar 4, 2024
3
YELL COUNTY REPUBLICAN COMMITTEE
OrganizationDARDANELLE, AR
$500
Jan 17, 2024
4
DARDANELLE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
OrganizationDARDANELLE, AR
$400
Jan 26, 2024
5
RAMSEY, JASON
RAGNAR • MANAGER
IndividualBREVARD, NC
$11,600
Jul 11, 2023
6
KLINGENSTEIN, THOMAS D. MR.
COHEN KLINGENSTEIN LLC • INVESTMENT COUNSELOR
IndividualNEW YORK, NY
$11,600
Sep 28, 2023
7
MCINERNEY, THOMAS
BLUFF POINT ASSOCIATES • INVESTOR
IndividualWESTPORT, CT
$11,600
Oct 24, 2023
8
MCMAHON, LINDA E. MRS.
AMERICA FIRST POLICY INSTITUTE • SELF-EMPLOYED
IndividualGREENWICH, CT
$11,600
Oct 31, 2023
9
CHIAPPA, CARL
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualOLD CHATHAM, NY
$11,600
Nov 9, 2023
10
SCHWARZMAN, CHRISTINE
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualNEW YORK, NY
$11,600
Jan 11, 2024

Sen. Crapo, Mike [R-ID]

ID: C000880

Top Contributors

10

1
MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationBANNING, CA
$3,300
Jun 30, 2023
2
SAN MANUEL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationLOS ANGELES, CA
$2,000
Dec 19, 2024
3
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN
$1,000
Apr 30, 2024
4
ONEIDA NATION
OrganizationONEIDA, WI
$1,000
Sep 10, 2024
5
RENO-SPARKS INDIAN COLONY
OrganizationRENO, NV
$500
Sep 10, 2024
6
ARNOLD, JOHN D. MR.
NONE • RETIRED
IndividualHOUSTON, TX
$6,600
May 6, 2024
7
LEPRINO, TERRY L
NONE • RETIRED
IndividualDENVER, CO
$3,300
Nov 1, 2024
8
BUKOWSKY, BRANT
MORTGAGE RESEARCH CENTER • ENTREPRENEUR
IndividualCOLUMBIA, MO
$3,300
Oct 9, 2023
9
BUKOWSKY, BROCK
VETERANS UNITED • FINANCE
IndividualCOLUMBIA, MO
$3,300
Nov 28, 2023
10
SILBEY, ALEXANDER
ATS COMMUNICATIONS, INC. • CONSULTANT
IndividualWASHINGTON, DC
$3,300
Dec 21, 2023

Sen. Lankford, James [R-OK]

ID: L000575

Top Contributors

10

1
MUSCOGEE CREEK NATION
OrganizationOKMULGEE, OK
$1,000
Oct 29, 2024
2
HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP
OrganizationRICHMOND, VA
$1,000
Aug 4, 2023
3
SAMPLES, RYAN
SAMPLES GROUP • MANAGEMENT
IndividualOKLAHOMA CITY, OK
$6,600
Aug 30, 2023
4
KAY, ALISON
KIDS CAPITAL • HEDGE FUND MANAGER
IndividualBEVERLY HILLS, CA
$6,600
Jun 20, 2023
5
KANADY, CHRISTIAN
ECHO INVESTMENT CAPITAL, LLC • CEO
IndividualNICHOLS HILLS, OK
$6,600
Jun 10, 2024
6
MANDELBLATT, DANIELLE
RETIRED
IndividualASPEN, CO
$6,600
Jul 31, 2024
7
MANDELBLATT, ERIC
SOROBAN CAPITAL PARTNERS LP • MANAGING PARTNER
IndividualASPEN, CO
$6,600
Jul 31, 2024
8
ROWAN, CAROLYN
CAROLYN ROWAN COLLECTION • OWNER
IndividualNEW YORK, NY
$6,600
Sep 30, 2024
9
ROWAN, MARC J.
APOLLO GLOBAL MANAGEMENT • CEO
IndividualNEW YORK, NY
$6,600
Sep 30, 2024
10
ARMSTRONG, SINCLAIR WALKER JR.
ARMSTRONG BANK • CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD
IndividualVIAN, OK
$6,600
Aug 30, 2023

Sen. Risch, James E. [R-ID]

ID: R000584

Top Contributors

10

1
CRW RESOURCES
OrganizationCOEUR D ALENE, ID
$1,000
Feb 29, 2024
2
SNELL, PETER
ARBELLA CAPITAL • REAL EATATE
IndividualARLINGTON, VA
$5,000
May 8, 2024
3
KAYALI, ZEID
SELF • PHYSICIAN
IndividualPASADENA, CA
$3,500
Feb 9, 2023
4
MOORE, JEFFREY
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualLAS VEGAS, NV
$3,435
Nov 19, 2024
5
KTELEH, TAREK
RHEUMATOLOGY • DOCTOR
IndividualFISHERS, IN
$3,300
Dec 23, 2024
6
ALAAMA, ABDUL M.D.
SELF • GASTROENTEROLOGY
IndividualWHITTIER, CA
$3,300
Feb 9, 2023
7
ASHOURI, DIANA
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA • PHYSICIAN
IndividualPASADENA, CA
$3,300
Feb 9, 2023
8
DIAB, MOHAMED KHEIR
MASIMO CORPORATION • DIRECTOR
IndividualLADERA RANCH, CA
$3,300
Feb 9, 2023
9
MOUJTAHED, SAED
OWL REXALL INFUSION • DIRECTOR
IndividualTRABUCO CANYON, CA
$3,300
Feb 9, 2023
10
MONSEN, MARION F
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualSUN VALLEY, ID
$3,300
Sep 6, 2023

Sen. Sullivan, Dan [R-AK]

ID: S001198

Top Contributors

10

1
SEND IN THE SEAL PAC
PACALEXANDRIA, VA
$45,000
Aug 9, 2024
2
THE LINCOLN CLUB OF ORANGE COUNTY FEDERAL PAC
PACNEWPORT BEACH, CA
$25,000
Oct 18, 2024
3
SEND IN THE SEAL PAC
PACALEXANDRIA, VA
$15,000
Aug 9, 2024
4
WINRED
PACARLINGTON, VA
$6,600
Oct 19, 2023
5
RON JOHNSON VICTORY
COMOSHKOSH, WI
$1,997
Sep 30, 2024
6
MACLEAN-FOGG COMPANY
OrganizationMUNDELEIN, IL
$58,700
Dec 28, 2023
7
AK-CHIN INDIAN COMMUNITY
OrganizationMARICOPA, AZ
$41,300
Dec 29, 2023
8
MACLEAN-FOGG COMPANY
OrganizationMUNDELEIN, IL
$41,300
Dec 28, 2023
9
PASCUA YAQUI TRIBE
OrganizationTUCSON, AZ
$41,300
Dec 29, 2023
10
TIGUA INDIAN RESERVATION
OrganizationEL PASO, TX
$41,300
Dec 19, 2023

Sen. Scott, Rick [R-FL]

ID: S001217

Top Contributors

0

No contribution data available

Sen. Paul, Rand [R-KY]

ID: P000603

Top Contributors

10

1
MACRICOSTAS, GEORGE C. MR.
RAGINGWIRE ENTERPRISE SOLUTIONS INC. • EXECUTIVE BOARD SERVICE
IndividualINCLINE VILLAGE, NV
$13,200
Apr 29, 2024
2
ANDREESSEN, LAURA ARRILLAGA
SELF-EMPLOYED • PHILANTHROPIST
IndividualLOS ALTOS, CA
$6,600
Apr 25, 2024
3
ANDREESSEN, MARC
ANDREESSEN HOROWITZ • CO-FOUNDER
IndividualLOS ALTOS, CA
$6,600
Apr 25, 2024
4
KARVELA, ELENI
HOMEMAKER • HOMEMAKER
IndividualINCLINE VILLAGE, NV
$6,600
Apr 29, 2024
5
COLBERT, THOMAS W. MR.
COMMUNITY BANCHARES OF MS. • BANKING
IndividualFLOWOOD, MS
$5,000
Oct 11, 2024
6
HALL, SANDY MRS.
HOMEMAKER • HOMEMAKER
IndividualMIDLAND, TX
$3,300
Oct 1, 2024
7
GATES, RORY
SENATE • ANALYST
IndividualWASHINGTON, DC
$3,300
Oct 7, 2024
8
MCPHEE, MICHAEL
PHALCON LTD • PRESIDENT
IndividualGOSHEN, CT
$3,300
Oct 27, 2024
9
MCPHEE, MICHAEL
PHALCON LTD • PRESIDENT
IndividualGOSHEN, CT
$3,300
Dec 2, 2024
10
FORBES, SEAN
SC FORBES VENTURES VII • CHAIRMAN
IndividualAUSTIN, TX
$3,300
Nov 1, 2024

Sen. Lummis, Cynthia M. [R-WY]

ID: L000571

Top Contributors

10

1
HEGYI, ALBERT P
1ST FINANCIAL BANK USA • BANKER
IndividualNEW YORK, NY
$6,600
Dec 6, 2023
2
MANDELBLATT, DANIELLE
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualASPEN, CO
$6,600
Sep 26, 2024
3
MANDELBLATT, ERIC
SOROBAN CAPITAL PARTNERS LP • MANAGING PARTNER
IndividualASPEN, CO
$6,600
Sep 26, 2024
4
SAMANI, PYAHM
IndividualAUSTIN, TX
$5,800
Aug 8, 2023
5
CASCARILLA, MARISSA
NA • HOMEMAKER
IndividualMIAMI, FL
$3,700
Apr 1, 2024
6
CASCARILLA, CHARLES
PAXOS • CEO
IndividualMIAMI, FL
$3,700
Apr 1, 2024
7
DOWNS, RAISSA
TARPLIN, DOWNS AND YOUNG, LLC • CONSULTANT
IndividualWASHINGTON, DC
$3,600
Dec 12, 2024
8
SCARAMUCCI, ANTHONY
SKYBRIDGE • MANAGING PARTNER
IndividualPLANDOME, NY
$3,435
Jul 30, 2024
9
HOBART, ROBERT
VENTURE GOVERNMENT STRATEGIES • CONSULTANT
IndividualNASHVILLE, TN
$3,435
Aug 5, 2024
10
HOLDING, KATHLEEN MS.
SUNLIGHT RANCH CO. • EXECUTIVE
IndividualDAYTON, WY
$3,300
Dec 6, 2023

Donor Network - Sen. Johnson, Ron [R-WI]

PACs
Organizations
Individuals
Politicians

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

Loading...

Showing 64 nodes and 42 connections (61 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $208,487

Top Donors - Sen. Johnson, Ron [R-WI]

Showing top 21 donors by contribution amount

6 Orgs15 Individuals

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 2 helped.

  • +Defense Contractorsconfidence 0.80

    Section 2(b)(1) provides appropriations for pay and allowances of members of the Armed Forces during a lapse in appropriations, which benefits defense contractors.

  • +Labor Unionsconfidence 0.70

    Section 2(b)(1) provides standard employee compensation to covered employees, including those represented by labor unions, during a lapse in appropriations.

Who funds the sponsor on these industries

For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Sen. Johnson, Ron [R-WI])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

  • from 40 contributions
    • STRAHAN, TAMARA$701
    • KELSHIKER, AMALA$365
    • JORDAN, GERRY$199
    • ODONNELL, GERALD$175
    • BANGERT, LOUIS$78
  • from 1 contribution
    • BOGGAN, ROBERT$50

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

Weak
Vector: 63%
Pages: 624-626AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The Shutdown Fairness Act focuses on ensuring pay for federal workers during appropriations lapses, whereas the Project 2025 DOL section concerns overtime thresholds, guidance document rules, and compliance assistance for businesses. The only tangential connection is a shared interest in worker compensation protections."

Key themes:federal employee compensationpay continuitylabor protections

— 592 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Overtime Pay Threshold. Overtime pay is one of the most challenging aspects of the Fair Labor Standards Act rules. “Nonexempt workers” (e.g., workers whose job duties fall within the law’s power or whose total pay is low enough) must be paid overtime (150 percent of the “regular rate”) for every hour over 40 in a work- week. Overtime requirements may discourage employers from offering certain fringe benefits such as reimbursement for education, childcare, or even free meals because the benefits’ value may be included in the “regular rate” that must be paid at 150 percent for all overtime hours. And because some of these fringe ben- efits may be more valuable (and often come with tax preferences that benefit the worker), the goal should be to set a threshold to ensure lower-income workers have the protections of overtime pay without discouraging employers from offering these benefits. l DOL should maintain an overtime threshold that does not punish businesses in lower-cost regions (e.g., the southeast United States). The Trump-era threshold is high enough to capture most line workers in lower-cost regions. One possibility to consider (likely requiring congressional action) would be to automatically update the thresholds every five years using the Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE) as an inflation adjustment. This could reduce the likelihood of a future Administration attempting to make significant changes but would also impose more adjustments on businesses as those automatic increases take hold. l Congress should clarify that the “regular rate” for overtime pay is based on the salary paid rather than all benefits provided. This would enable employers to offer additional benefits to employees without fear that those benefits would dramatically increase overtime pay. l Congress should provide flexibility to employers and employees to calculate the overtime period over a longer number of weeks. Specifically, employers and employees should be able to set a two- or four- week period over which to calculate overtime. This would give workers greater flexibility to work more hours in one week and fewer hours in the next and would not require the employer to pay them more for that same total number of hours of work during the entire period. Compliance-Assistance Programming. Labor agencies are often tempted to encourage “over compliance” by companies subject to regulation by pursuing “regulation through enforcement” strategies. Rather than giving regulated enti- ties clear boundaries for what they can and cannot do under the law, the agencies — 593 — Department of Labor and Related Agencies rely on the vagueness of the law to bring enforcement activity against businesses that fail to meet an inspector or agency head’s personal standard. This is not fair to regulated parties and results in disfavored companies bearing the brunt of the agencies’ enforcement efforts even though their behavior may be within the main- stream of employer behavior. l Labor agencies should provide compliance assistance to help businesses and workers better understand the agencies’ position on their own rules and should do so in a way that makes it easier to follow those rules. This frees people to focus on their work rather than slogging through an ever-growing body of laws, rules, and guidance documents generated by the agencies. Clear and Restrictive Rules on Guidance Documents. Federal agencies not only issue regulations to fill in gaps left by legislation, but also supplement those reg- ulations with “guidance” documents that occupy a unique and often confusing area between law and “helpful advice.” Unfortunately, wielded by overzealous enforcement agents, such guidance, some of it even hidden from public view, morphs into binding law used against unsuspecting employers. Guidance can be a tricky thing and can be used for good or bad. It should be used to make compli- cated regulations easier to understand, so that businesses can do their actual jobs and focus on providing jobs to American workers and value to consumers (really, compliance assistance). But guidance is often used to create new rules overnight without following legal requirements—like giving the public an opportunity to provide valuable input. This wrongful use of guidance hurts workers and those who employ them. In October 2019, President Trump signed an executive order ending this abusive practice and created a new, fairer system for American busi- nesses and their employees. In response, DOL published its PRO Good Guidance rule,10 which expressly limits its use of guidance in enforcement actions and gives the public the opportunity to submit comments to influence the department’s deci- sions on creating, revising, and even rescinding guidance. Under this rule, agencies cannot treat guidance as legally binding and must make all guidance documents readily accessible on their searchable online databases. This rule was immediately rescinded by the Biden Administration. l DOL should reinstitute the PRO Good Guidance rule via notice and comment. l Congress should amend the Administrative Procedure Act11 to explicitly limit the use of guidance documents.

Department of Housing and Urban Development

Weak
Vector: 63%
Pages: 545-547AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The Shutdown Fairness Act focuses on ensuring pay for federal employees during appropriations lapses, while the Project 2025 HUD section emphasizes administrative reforms, waste/fraud reduction, and competence improvements; the only overlap is their shared concern for federal employee stability and government operations."

Key themes:federal employee compensationgovernment continuityappropriations process

— 513 — Department of Housing and Urban Development ENDNOTES 1. At a 1998 Senate hearing, then-HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo acknowledged that the department “faced a competence gap” and had “the dubious distinction of being the only federal agency designated as ‘high risk’ by the General Accounting [now Government Accountability] Office (GAO),” even referencing the Section 8 rental subsidy as “on the brink of becoming the next savings and loan scandal,” and explained how the department was stepping up enforcement efforts “focused on closing the competence gap by eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse.” See “Testimony of Secretary Andrew Cuomo before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies,” March 25, 1998, https://archives.hud.gov/ testimony/1998/tst32598.cfm (accessed March 4, 2023). 2. H.R. 7984, Housing and Urban Development Act of 1965, Public Law No. 89-117, 89th Congress, August 10, 1965, https://www.congress.gov/89/statute/STATUTE-79/STATUTE-79-Pg451.pdf (accessed March 4, 2023). 3. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2023 Budget in Brief, pp. 2 and 7, https://www.hud.gov/ sites/dfiles/CFO/documents/2023_BudgetInBriefFINAL.pdf (accessed March 4, 2023). 4. For example, the Special Applications Center (SAC) located in Chicago, Illinois, was established in 1998 as a division of the Office of Public and Indian Housing to accept, review, and approve all nonfunded, noncompetitive applications and plans for demolition, disposition, and conversion of land subject to an annual contributions contract (ACC) in public housing. 5. The Secretary has delegated full authority for the Administration and enforcement of the Fair Housing Act to the Assistant Secretary of the Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity but also has delegated limited assignment and decision-making authority to the General Counsel. 6. Effectively the HUD Chief Operating Officer and appointed by the President with Senate advice and consent. 7. The Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) is an independent adjudicatory office within the Office of the Secretary. Led by a Director who is appointed by the Secretary, it supervises the Administrative Judges of the Office of Appeals, the administrative law judges of the Office of Administrative Law Judges, and the OHA support staff. The HUD Secretary appoints administrative judges and administrative law judges in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. Chapter 5, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/part-I/ chapter-5 (accessed March 4, 2023). 8. HUD currently has a Departmental Equity Assessment Working Group, supported with five FTEs funded by the OSDBU, “as part of the President’s Executive Order 13985, Executive Order On Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government.” See U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2023 Congressional Justifications, p. 35-15, https://www.hud.gov/sites/ dfiles/CFO/documents/2023HUDCongressionalJustificationsFINALelectronicversion.pdf (accessed March 4, 2023), and President Joseph R. Biden Jr., Executive Order 13985, “Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government,” January 20, 2021, in Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 14 (January 25, 2021), pp. 7009–7013, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2021-01-25/pdf/2021- 01753.pdf (accessed March 4, 2023). 9. Interestingly, “[t]he 2023 President’s Budget requests $748 thousand for CFBNP, which is $436 thousand less than the 2022 Annualized CR level. The Budget reflects total funding (carryover and new authority) of $1.2 million, $448 thousand less than 2022 total funding.” U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2023 Congressional Justifications, p. 35-16. 10. See H.R. 558, Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act, Public Law No. 100-77, 100th Congress, July 22, 1987, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-101/pdf/STATUTE-101-Pg482.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023). Later renamed the McKinney–Vento Homeless Assistance Act. 11. Established under the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, 42 U.S.C. §§ 5301 et seq., https:// www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42 (accessed March 4, 2023). 12. S. 566, Cranston–Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act, Public Law No. 101-625, 101st Congress, November 28, 1990, Title II, https://www.congress.gov/101/statute/STATUTE-104/STATUTE-104-Pg4079.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023). 13. S. 1, Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Public Law No. 91-646, 91st Congress, January 2, 1971, https://www.congress.gov/91/statute/STATUTE-84/STATUTE-84-Pg1894.pdf (accessed March 4, 2023). “The URA establishes the minimum Federal requirements for the acquisition of real property for Federally-funded programs and projects, and for the relocation of persons who must move from — 514 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise their homes, businesses, or farms as a direct result of acquisition, rehabilitation, or demolition for a Federally- funded program or project.” U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, HUD Exchange, “49 CFR Part 24–URA Regulations,” published February 2005, https://www.hudexchange.info/resource/804/ura-and- real-property-acquisition-policies-act-49-cfr-part-24/ (accessed March 4, 2023). HUD is one of the 18 federal departments and agencies that “are subject to the Uniform Act.” U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, “Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition for Federal and Federally Assisted Programs,” Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 243 (December 18, 2019), pp. 69466–69521, esp. p. 69484, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-12-18/pdf/2019-25558.pdf (accessed March 4, 2023). 14. H.R. 3219, Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996, Public Law No. 104-330, 104th Congress, October 26, 1996, https://www.congress.gov/104/plaws/publ330/PLAW-104publ330.pdf (accessed March 4, 2023). 15. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2023 Congressional Justifications, p. 6-1. The U.S. Housing Act of 1937 (Wagner–Steagall Act) established the origins of locally chartered housing agencies that administer federal funding for various rental assistance programs—a quintessentially progressive New Deal–era policy that expanded the administrative state’s powers to the housing market—with the primary legislative intent of eradicating slum housing in urban areas, boosting jobs, and providing housing for the working poor. 42 U.S.C. §§ 1437 et seq., https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42 (accessed March 4, 2023). A decade later, the Housing Act of 1949 codified federal standards for housing livability—a rationale that HUD and federal legislators have continued to use to justify federal intervention in housing—establishing as a national policy objective the provision of a minimum standard of housing quality for all Americans. This legislation also statutorily established many of the rural housing programs that are administered at USDA and expanded programs facilitating the removal of slum housing in urban areas. 42 U.S.C. §§ 1441 et seq., https:// www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42 (accessed March 4, 2023). 16. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2023 Congressional Justifications, pp. 1-2 and 2-2. 17. The National Housing Act of 1934 established the FHA and the statutory authority for the secondary market. The main stated premise was to stimulate jobs and facilitate the housing and construction sector during the Great Depression. 42 U.S.C. §§ 1701 et seq., https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12 (accessed March 4, 2023). 18. 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000d et seq., https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42 (accessed March 4, 2023). 19. 29 U.S.C. §§ 701 et seq., https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/29 (accessed March 4, 2023). 20. HUD’s Departmental Enforcement Center (DEC) is led by a Director. It was established in 1998 as part of a broader effort to streamline and consolidate functions at HUD and was later merged with the Office of General Counsel. The DEC “is comprised of the Office of the Director, the Compliance Division, the Operations Division and five Satellite Offices” and describes its mission as “assuring the highest standards of ethics, management and accountability in the resolution of HUD's troubled properties.” U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Departmental Enforcement Center, “Program Offices: Departmental Enforcement Center,” https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/enforcement (accessed March 4, 2023). 21. H.R. 5334, Housing and Community Development Act of 1992, Public Law No. 102-1017, 102nd Congress, October 28, 1992, Title X, https://www.congress.gov/102/statute/STATUTE-106/STATUTE-106-Pg3672.pdf (accessed March 4, 2023). 22. H.R. 8588, Inspector General Act of 1978, Public Law No. 95-452, 95th Congress, October 12, 1978, https://www. congress.gov/95/statute/STATUTE-92/STATUTE-92-Pg1101.pdf (accessed March 4, 2023). 23. Guiding questions: What immediate administrative reforms of HUD and its programs can be made with high probability of success? What short-term legislative reforms can be proposed that, in tandem with administrative reforms, would achieve the HUD vision/mission objective? What HUD offices should be eliminated and/or realigned to reduce any redundancy that may persist in programmatic functions? 24. Wholly aside from reforms that would require legislation, the next Administration must ensure that key political appointees are able to acquit themselves as change agents to execute administrative reforms. Otherwise, whether because of a sheer lack of skill and expertise or simply a lack of will and philosophical alignment with reforms, staff may frustrate the efforts of committed political appointee staff and leadership to execute substantive administrative reforms. To achieve the policy and regulatory reforms outlined in this chapter, political appointees must be carefully placed in positions that reflect not only technical, market/ industry, and operational expertise, but also a shared will and commitment.

Department of Labor and Related Agencies

Weak
Vector: 61%
Pages: 645-647AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"Both the bill and the Project 2025 section concern worker protections, but the bill focuses on ensuring pay during government shutdowns while the policy emphasizes hiring preferences, visa fraud enforcement, and international labor standards, resulting only tangential overlap."

Key themes:worker protectionfederal employmentcompensation stability

— 613 — Department of Labor and Related Agencies l Congress must amend the law so that employers can again have the freedom to make hiring Americans a priority. Despite the significant advantages that preferring citizens over (work-authorized) aliens in hiring would provide to American workers, businesses, and the country at large, such a practice has been illegal since 1986.25 This makes no sense. Alternative View Some conservatives believe that the government has a duty to limit its spending in order to limit how much it takes from American families. This means that when the government spends money, it must find the most econom- ical and effective way to do so. Excessive government spending will be borne by American workers and families through reduced incomes and purchasing power. There may be good reasons to require a certain percentage of American workers on federal contracts, but those decisions should be based on economy and efficiency as opposed to arbitrary quotas. Visa Fraud. American businesses that commit visa fraud and hire illegal immi- grants should not be the beneficiaries of federal spending. But a 2020 report by the Department of Labor’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) examined the depart- ment’s process for excluding employers who commit visa fraud and abuse from federal contracts and found much to be desired. l To protect the American workforce from unscrupulous immigration lawyers, employers, and labor brokers, the department must follow the recommendations of the OIG and institute more robust investigations for suspected visa fraud and speedier debarments for those found guilty. INTERNATIONAL LABOR POLICY Leveling the International Playing Field for Workers. As recent decades of intense import competition and offshoring have made clear, American workers suffer when the U.S. opens its markets to foreign nations’ minimal labor standards and exploitative conditions. While federal law already prohibits the importation of goods produced with forced labor, the prohibitions are toothless without effective means of enforcement and cover only the most basic of workers’ rights. The Trump Administration and its United States Trade Representative (USTR) took unprece- dented steps to redress the issue for workers. The U.S.–Mexico–Canada Agreement (USMCA) contained the strongest and most far-reaching labor provisions of any free trade agreement (FTA), with protections and commitments to reduce labor abuses and raise wages. It also established new modes of enforcement. For future FTAs, the USTR should replicate the labor provisions of USMCA, especially the provisions to: — 614 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l Eliminate all forms of forced or compulsory labor. l Protect workers’ rights to organize and participate voluntarily in a union without employer interference or discrimination. l Create a rapid-response mechanism to provide for an independent panel investigation of denial of labor rights at covered facilities. l Shift the burden of proof by presuming that an alleged violation affects trade and investment, unless otherwise demonstrated. For future authorizations of Trade Promotion Authority (TPA), the President should urge Congress to: l Create mechanisms for supply-chain transparency. l Institute a general prohibition on forced labor conditions. Investigate Foreign Labor Violations That Undermine American Work- ers. The United States’ embrace of globalization has exposed American workers to unfair competition from nations with cheap, abundant, and often exploited labor. American workers have, as a consequence, seen their earning power erode. While negotiating stronger trade agreements with robust labor provisions should be the primary tool with which to regulate international labor competition, the federal government can also take steps to identify the worst labor abuses and rule breakers. DOL’s Bureau of International Labor Affairs (ILAB) plays a critical role in monitor- ing and enforcing the labor provisions of U.S. trade agreements and trade preference programs as well as investigating child labor and human trafficking violations. l The next Administration should focus ILAB investigations on foreign labor violations that do the most to damage American workers’ earning power, specifically regimes that engage in child and forced labor, fail to protect workers’ organizing rights, and permit hazardous or otherwise exploitative working conditions. Alternative/Additional View. Conservatives share a belief in protecting and pro- moting American workers and their families and orienting international policies with Americans’ interests first. Some conservatives believe that the best way to put Amer- ica first is by making America more attractive. In addition to restrictions imposed on other countries, removing existing barriers to American manufacturing, employ- ment, and commerce can help American workers, entrepreneurs, and families.

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