Tag: Congress

  • H. R. 1 & AI

    Did you know a total of $1,719,000,000 is explicitly allocated to Artificial Intelligence and related initiatives in the H. R. 1 or ‘‘One Big Beautiful Bill Act’’.

    Here is a breakdown of the funding:

    • $450,000,000 for the application of autonomy and artificial intelligence to naval shipbuilding (page 91).
    • $250,000,000 for the expansion of Cyber Command artificial intelligence lines of effort (page 131).
    • $250,000,000 for the advancement of the artificial intelligence ecosystem (page 131).
    • $250,000,000 for the development of the Test Resource Management Center digital test environment (page 131).
    • $250,000,000 for the acceleration of the Quantum Benchmarking Initiative, a key component of future AI development (page 131).
    • $145,000,000 for the development of artificial intelligence to enable one-way attack unmanned aerial systems and naval systems (page 131).
    • $124,000,000 for improvements to Test Resource Management Center artificial intelligence capabilities (page 130).

    Additionally, under the U.S. Customs and Border Protection section, $1,076,317,000 is allocated for non-intrusive inspection equipment, which includes funding for Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning (ML), though a specific amount for AI is not broken out from this total (page 423).

  • One Big Beautiful Bill Act Line Item List

    Have you ever wondered what a bill that touches everything from your grocery bill to our national defense looks like? Congress has just introduced a massive piece of legislation, the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” and its impact will be felt by every American.

    This isn’t just another bill; it’s a sweeping overhaul that allocates billions of dollars to reshape our nation. We’re talking about a historic investment in our military, with new ships, advanced missile defense systems, and improved quality of life for our troops. The bill also includes a complete and total rebuilding of our border security, major upgrades to our infrastructure, and significant funding for everything from the future of agriculture to the cutting edge of AI and space technology.

    But what does this all mean for you and your family? This bill could mean new jobs in your community, changes to your healthcare, and a direct impact on the economy for years to come. With provisions affecting everything from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, this bill is a roadmap for the future of our nation. Understanding it is the first step to having a say in where we’re headed.

    Don’t get left in the dark. Dive into the details of this landmark legislation. Read our comprehensive, line-item breakdown of the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” to see exactly where your tax dollars are going.

    Whether you are for, against, or unsure about it, share this post with your friends and family and join the conversation about the future of America.

    Committee on Agriculture

    Conservation (SEC. 10102, starting on page 33)

    • Grassroots Source Water Protection Program: $1,000,000 beginning in fiscal year 2026
    • Voluntary Public Access and Habitat Incentive Program: $10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2025 through 2031
    • Feral Swine Eradication and Control Pilot Program: $15,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2025 through 2031
    • Environmental Quality Incentives Program:
      • $625,000,000 for fiscal year 2026
      • $650,000,000 for fiscal year 2027
      • $675,000,000 for fiscal year 2028
      • $700,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2029 through 2031
    • Conservation Stewardship Program:
      • $2,655,000,000 for fiscal year 2026
      • $2,855,000,000 for fiscal year 2027
      • $3,255,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2028 through 2031
    • Agricultural Conservation Easement Program:
      • $1,300,000,000 for fiscal year 2026
      • $1,325,000,000 for fiscal year 2027
      • $1,350,000,000 for fiscal year 2028
      • $1,375,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2029 through 2031
    • Regional Conservation Partnership Program:
      • $425,000,000 for fiscal year 2026
      • $450,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2027 through 2031
    • Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention: $150,000,000 for fiscal year 2026

    Supplemental Agricultural Trade Promotion Program (SEC. 10103, starting on page 37)

    • $285,000,000 for fiscal year 2027 and each fiscal year thereafter

    Research (SEC. 10104, starting on page 38)

    • Foundation for Food and Agriculture Research: $37,000,000
    • Scholarships for students at 1890 institutions: $60,000,000 for fiscal year 2026
    • Assistive technology program for farmers with disabilities: $8,000,000
    • Specialty Crop Research Initiative: $175,000,000 for fiscal year 2026
    • Research Facilities Act: $125,000,000 for each fiscal year beginning with fiscal year 2026

    Horticulture (SEC. 10107, starting on page 42)

    • Plant Pest and Disease Management and Disaster Prevention: $90,000,000 for fiscal year 2026
    • Specialty Crop Block Grants: $100,000,000 for fiscal year 2026
    • Organic Production and Market Data Initiative: $10,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2026 through 2031
    • Modernization and Improvement of International Trade Technology Systems and Data Collection Funding: $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2026
    • Multiple Crop and Pesticide Use Survey: $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2026

    Miscellaneous (SEC. 10108, starting on page 45)

    • Animal Disease Prevention and Management:
      • $233,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2026 through 2030
      • $75,000,000 for fiscal year 2031 and each fiscal year thereafter
    • Sheep Production and Marketing Grant Program: $3,000,000 for fiscal year 2026

    Committee on Armed Services

    Improving Quality of Life for Military Personnel (SEC. 20001, starting on page 84)

    All funds are for fiscal year 2025 and remain available until September 30, 2029.

    • Marine Corps Barracks 2030 initiative: $230,480,000
    • Base operating support for the Marine Corps: $119,000,000
    • Sustainment, restoration, and modernization of military unaccompanied housing: $1,000,000,000
    • Defense Health Program: $2,000,000,000
    • Supplement to the basic allowance for housing: $2,900,000,000
    • Bonuses, special pays, and incentive pays: $50,000,000
    • Defense Activity for Non-Traditional Education Support’s Online Academic Skills Course program: $10,000,000
    • Tuition assistance: $100,000,000
    • Child care fee assistance: $100,000,000
    • Temporary Lodging Expense Allowance: $590,000,000
    • Department of Defense Impact Aid payments: $100,000,000
    • Military spouse professional licensure: $10,000,000
    • Armed Forces Retirement Home facilities: $6,000,000
    • Defense Community Infrastructure Program: $100,000,000

    Shipbuilding (SEC. 20002, starting on page 87)

    All funds are for fiscal year 2025 and remain available until September 30, 2029, unless otherwise noted.

    • Accelerated Training in Defense Manufacturing program: $250,000,000
    • United States production of turbine generators for shipbuilding: $250,000,000
    • United States additive manufacturing for wire production and machining capacity for shipbuilding: $450,000,000
    • Next-generation shipbuilding techniques: $492,000,000
    • United States-made steel plate for shipbuilding: $85,000,000
    • Machining capacity for naval propellers: $50,000,000
    • Rolled steel and fabrication facility for shipbuilding: $110,000,000
    • Expansion of collaborative campus for naval shipbuilding: $400,000,000
    • Application of autonomy and artificial intelligence to naval shipbuilding: $450,000,000
    • Adoption of advanced manufacturing techniques in the shipbuilding industrial base: $500,000,000
    • Additional dry-dock capability: $500,000,000
    • Expansion of cold spray repair technologies: $50,000,000
    • Additional maritime industrial workforce development programs: $450,000,000
    • Additional supplier development across the naval shipbuilding industrial base: $750,000,000
    • Additional advanced manufacturing processes across the naval shipbuilding industrial base: $250,000,000
    • Second Virginia-class submarine: $4,600,000,000 (in fiscal year 2026)
    • Two additional Guided Missile Destroyer (DDG) ships: $5,400,000,000
    • Advanced procurement for Landing Ship Medium: $160,000,000
    • Procurement of Landing Ship Medium: $1,803,941,000
    • Development of a second Landing Craft Utility shipyard and production of additional Landing Craft Utility: $295,000,000
    • Procurement of commercial logistics ships: $100,000,000
    • Lease or purchase of new ships through the National Defense Sealift Fund: $600,000,000
    • Procurement of T-AO oilers: $2,725,000,000
    • Cost-to-complete for rescue and salvage ships: $500,000,000
    • Production of ship-to-shore connectors: $300,000,000
    • Implementation of a multi-ship amphibious warship contract: $695,000,000
    • Accelerated development of vertical launch system reloading at sea: $80,000,000
    • Expansion of Navy corrosion control programs: $250,000,000
    • Leasing of ships for Marine Corps operations: $159,000,000
    • Expansion of small unmanned surface vessel production: $1,534,000,000
    • Expansion of medium unmanned surface vessel production: $1,800,000,000
    • Expansion of unmanned underwater vehicle production: $1,300,000,000
    • Development and testing of maritime robotic autonomous systems: $188,360,000
    • Development of a Test Resource Management Center robotic autonomous systems proving ground: $174,000,000
    • Development, production, and integration of wave-powered unmanned underwater vehicles: $250,000,000
    • San Antonio-class Amphibious Transport Dock (LPD): $2,100,000,000
    • America-class Amphibious Assault Ship (LHA): $3,700,000,000

    Integrated Air and Missile Defense (SEC. 20003, starting on page 101)

    All funds are for fiscal year 2025 and remain available until September 30, 2029.

    • Next Generation Missile Defense Technologies:
      • Missile Defense Agency special programs: $183,000,000
      • Development and testing of directed energy capabilities: $250,000,000
      • Classified military space superiority programs: $300,000,000
      • National security space launch infrastructure: $500,000,000
      • Air moving target indicator military satellites: $2,000,000,000
      • Expansion of Multi-Service Advanced Capability Hypersonic Test Bed program: $400,000,000
      • Development of space-based and boost phase intercept capabilities: $5,600,000,000
      • Development of military non-kinetic missile defense effects: $2,400,000,000
      • Development, procurement, and integration of military space-based sensors: $7,200,000,000
    • Layered Homeland Defense:
      • Acceleration of hypersonic defense systems: $2,200,000,000
      • Accelerated development and deployment of next-generation intercontinental ballistic missile defense systems: $800,000,000
      • Army space and strategic missile test range infrastructure restoration and modernization: $408,000,000
      • Improved ground-based missile defense radars: $1,975,000,000
      • Design and construction of Missile Defense Agency missile instrumentation range safety ship: $530,000,000

    Munitions and Defense Supply Chain Resiliency (SEC. 20004, starting on page 106)

    All funds are for fiscal year 2025 and remain available until September 30, 2029.

    • Navy and Air Force long-range anti-ship missiles: $400,000,000
    • Production capacity expansion for Navy and Air Force long-range anti-ship missiles: $380,000,000
    • Navy and Air Force long-range air-to-surface missiles: $490,000,000
    • Alternative Navy and Air Force long-range air-to-surface missiles: $94,000,000
    • Long-range Navy air defense and anti-ship missiles: $630,000,000
    • Long-range multi-service cruise missiles: $688,000,000
    • Production capacity expansion and supplier base strengthening of long-range multi-service cruise missiles: $250,000,000
    • Short-range Navy and Marine Corps anti-ship missiles: $70,000,000
    • Anti-ship seeker for short-range Army ballistic missiles: $100,000,000
    • Production capacity expansion for next-generation Army medium-range ballistic missiles: $175,000,000
    • Mitigation of diminishing manufacturing sources for medium-range air-to-air missiles: $50,000,000
    • Procurement of medium-range air-to-air missiles: $250,000,000
    • Expansion of production capacity for medium-range air-to-air missiles: $225,000,000
    • Development of second sources for components of short-range air-to-air missiles: $50,000,000
    • Production capacity improvements for air-launched anti-radiation missiles: $325,000,000
    • Accelerated development of Army next-generation medium-range anti-ship ballistic missiles: $50,000,000
    • Production of Army next-generation medium-range ballistic missiles: $114,000,000
    • Production of Army medium-range ballistic missiles: $300,000,000
    • Accelerated development of Army long-range ballistic missiles: $85,000,000
    • Production of heavyweight torpedoes: $400,000,000
    • Development, procurement, and integration of commercial heavyweight torpedoes: $200,000,000
    • Improvement of heavyweight torpedo maintenance activities: $70,000,000
    • Production of lightweight torpedoes: $200,000,000
    • Development, procurement, and integration of maritime mines: $500,000,000
    • Development, procurement, and integration of new underwater explosives: $50,000,000
    • Development, procurement, and integration of lightweight multi-mission torpedoes: $55,000,000
    • Production of sonobuoys: $80,000,000
    • Development, procurement, and integration of air-delivered long-range maritime mines: $150,000,000
    • Acceleration of Navy expeditionary loitering munitions deployment: $61,000,000
    • Acceleration of one-way attack unmanned aerial systems with advanced autonomy: $50,000,000
    • Expansion of the one-way attack unmanned aerial systems industrial base: $1,000,000,000
    • Grants made pursuant to the Industrial Base Fund: $3,500,000,000
    • Grants and purchase commitments made pursuant to the Industrial Base Fund: $1,000,000,000
    • Investments in solid rocket motor industrial base: $200,000,000
    • Investments in emerging solid rocket motor industrial base: $400,000,000
    • Investments in second sources for large-diameter solid rocket motors for hypersonic missiles: $42,000,000
    • Creation of next-generation automated munitions production factories: $1,000,000,000
    • Development of advanced radar depot: $170,000,000
    • Expansion of the Department of Defense industrial base policy analysis workforce: $25,000,000
    • Repair of Army missiles: $30,300,000
    • Production of small and medium ammunition: $100,000,000
    • Activities to improve the United States production of critical minerals through the National Defense Stockpile: $2,500,000,000
    • Expansion of the Department of Defense armaments cooperation workforce: $10,000,000
    • Expansion of the Defense Exportability Features program: $500,000,000
    • Production of Navy long-range air and missile defense interceptors: $350,000,000
    • Replacement of Navy long-range air and missile defense interceptors: $93,000,000
    • Development of a second solid rocket motor source for Navy air defense and anti-ship missiles: $100,000,000
    • Expansion of production capacity of Missile Defense Agency long-range anti-ballistic missiles: $65,000,000
    • Expansion of production capacity for Navy air defense and anti-ship missiles: $225,000,000
    • Expansion of depot level maintenance facility for Navy long-range air and missile defense interceptors: $103,300,000
    • Creation of domestic source for guidance section of Navy short-range air defense missiles: $18,000,000
    • Integration of Army medium-range air and missile defense interceptor with Navy ships: $65,000,000
    • Production of Army long-range movable missile defense radar: $176,100,000
    • Accelerated fielding of Army short-range gun-based air and missile defense system: $100,000,000
    • Development of low-cost alternatives to air and missile defense interceptors: $40,000,000
    • Acceleration of Army next-generation shoulder-fired air defense system: $50,000,000
    • Production of Army next-generation shoulder-fired air defense system: $91,000,000
    • Counter-unmanned aerial systems programs: $500,000,000
    • Non-kinetic counter-unmanned aerial systems programs: $350,000,000
    • Land-based counter-unmanned aerial systems programs: $250,000,000
    • Ship-based counter-unmanned aerial systems programs: $200,000,000
    • Acceleration of hypersonic strike programs: $400,000,000
    • “Department of Defense Credit Program Account” for capital assistance program for critical minerals and related industries: $500,000,000

    Scaling Low-Cost Weapons into Production (SEC. 20005, starting on page 125)

    All funds are for fiscal year 2025 and remain available until September 30, 2029.

    • Office of Strategic Capital Global Technology Scout program: $25,000,000
    • Expansion of the small unmanned aerial system industrial base: $1,100,000,000
    • Development and deployment of the Joint Fires Network: $400,000,000
    • Expansion of advanced command-and-control tools: $400,000,000
    • Development of shared secure facilities for the defense industrial base: $100,000,000
    • Creation of additional Defense Innovation Unit OnRamp Hubs: $50,000,000
    • Acceleration of Strategic Capabilities Office programs: $250,000,000
    • Expansion of Mission Capabilities office joint prototyping and experimentation activities: $650,000,000
    • Accelerated development and integration of advanced 5G/6G technologies: $500,000,000
    • Testing of simultaneous transmit and receive technology: $25,000,000
    • High-altitude stratospheric balloons: $50,000,000
    • Long-endurance unmanned aerial systems for surveillance: $120,000,000
    • Alternative positioning and navigation technology: $40,000,000
    • Innovative military logistics and energy capability development and deployment: $750,000,000
    • Small, portable modular nuclear reactors: $120,000,000
    • Programs to accelerate procurement and fielding of innovative technologies: $1,000,000,000
    • Reusable hypersonic technology: $90,000,000
    • Expansion of Defense Innovation Unit scaling of commercial technology: $2,000,000,000
    • Preventing delays in delivery of attritable autonomous military capabilities: $500,000,000
    • Low-cost cruise missiles: $1,000,000,000
    • Exportable low-cost cruise missiles: $500,000,000
    • Improvements to Test Resource Management Center artificial intelligence capabilities: $124,000,000
    • Development of artificial intelligence to enable one-way attack unmanned aerial systems and naval systems: $145,000,000
    • Development of the Test Resource Management Center digital test environment: $250,000,000
    • Advancement of the artificial intelligence ecosystem: $250,000,000
    • Expansion of Cyber Command artificial intelligence lines of effort: $250,000,000
    • Acceleration of the Quantum Benchmarking Initiative: $250,000,000
    • Expansion and acceleration of qualification activities and technical data management: $500,000,000
    • Expansion of the defense manufacturing technology program: $400,000,000
    • Military cryptographic modernization activities: $685,000,000
    • Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy for critical munition and defense article delivery to foreign partners: $100,000,000

    Committee on Energy and Commerce

    Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SEC. 41006, starting on page 248)

    Funds are for fiscal year 2025 and remain available until September 30, 2029.

    • Maintenance of storage facilities: $218,000,000
    • Acquisition of petroleum products: $1,321,000,000

    Medicaid and Medicare (starting on pages 320 and 337)

    • Grants to States for Medicaid community engagement requirements (SEC. 44141): $100,000,000 for fiscal year 2026
    • Implementation funding for Medicaid community engagement requirements (SEC. 44141): $50,000,000 for fiscal year 2026
    • Implementation of physician fee schedule modifications (SEC. 44304): $1,000,000 for fiscal year 2026

    Committee on Homeland Security

    Border Security (starting on pages 418-427)

    Unless otherwise noted, funds are for fiscal year 2025 and remain available until September 30, 2029.

    • Border barrier system construction and improvements (SEC. 60001): $46,500,000,000
    • Eradication of invasive plant species along the Rio Grande River (SEC. 60001): $50,000,000
    • U.S. Customs and Border Protection facilities and checkpoints (SEC. 60001): $5,000,000,000
    • Hiring and training of additional Border Patrol agents and other personnel (SEC. 60002): $4,100,000,000
    • Retention and hiring bonuses for Border Patrol agents and other personnel (SEC. 60002): $2,052,630,000
    • Acquisition of additional marked patrol units (SEC. 60002): $813,000,000
    • Training of newly hired Federal law enforcement personnel (SEC. 60002): $285,000,000
    • Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers facilities improvements (SEC. 60002): $465,000,000
    • Marketing and recruiting for border security personnel (SEC. 60002): $600,000,000
    • Non-intrusive inspection equipment and related technology (SEC. 60003): $1,076,317,000
    • Border surveillance technologies (SEC. 60003): $2,766,000,000
    • Biometric entry and exit system (SEC. 60003): $673,000,000
    • Air and Marine Operations platforms (SEC. 60003): $1,234,000,000
    • Screening and vetting activities (SEC. 60003): $16,000,000
    • State border security reimbursement (SEC. 60004): $10,000,000,000
    • State and local law enforcement presidential residence protection (SEC. 60005): $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2025 through 2029
    • State Homeland Security Grant Program (SEC. 60006): $1,000,000,000

    Committee on the Judiciary

    Immigration and Enforcement (starting on pages 561-575)

    All funds are for fiscal year 2025 and remain available until September 30, 2029.

    • Executive Office for Immigration Review (hiring and facility expansion) (SEC. 70100): $3,790,000,000
    • Adult alien detention capacity and family residential centers (SEC. 70101): $13,500,000,000
    • Retention and signing bonuses for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement personnel (SEC. 70102): $1,438,707,000
    • Hiring of additional U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement personnel (SEC. 70103): $2,900,000,000
    • U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement hiring capability (SEC. 70104): $1,000,000,000
    • Transportation and removal operations (SEC. 70105): $6,300,000,000
    • Information technology investments (SEC. 70106): $500,000,000
    • Facilities upgrades (SEC. 70107): $1,500,000,000
    • Fleet modernization (SEC. 70108): $500,000,000
    • Promoting family unity (SEC. 70109): $1,000,000,000
    • Funding for section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (SEC. 70110): $200,000,000
    • Compensation for incarceration of criminal aliens (SEC. 70111): $2,000,000,000
    • Office of the Principal Legal Advisor (hiring) (SEC. 70112): $700,000,000
    • Unaccompanied alien children capacity (SEC. 70115): $1,500,000,000
    • United States Secret Service (SEC. 70120): $1,000,000,000
    • Combating drug trafficking and illegal drug use (SEC. 70121): $500,000,000
    • Investigating and prosecuting immigration-related matters (SEC. 70122): $600,000,000
    • Expedited removal for criminal aliens (SEC. 70123): $75,000,000
    • Removal of certain criminal aliens without further hearing (SEC. 70124): $25,000,000

    Regulatory Matters (SEC. 70200, starting on page 578)

    • Review of agency rulemaking: $100,000,000 for fiscal year 2025, available through September 30, 2028

    Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

    FEHB Protection (SEC. 90004, starting on page 789)

    • Office of Personnel Management for eligibility verification and oversight:
      • $36,792,000 in fiscal year 2026
      • $44,733,161 in fiscal year 2027
      • $50,930,778 in fiscal year 2028
      • $54,198,238 in fiscal year 2029
      • $54,855,425 in fiscal year 2030
      • $56,062,244 in fiscal year 2031
      • $57,295,613 in fiscal year 2032
      • $58,556,117 in fiscal year 2033
      • $59,844,351 in fiscal year 2034
      • For fiscal year 2035 and each year thereafter, the amount is the previous year’s amount increased by 2.2%
    • Audit of family member eligibility: $80,000,000 in fiscal year 2026
    • Office of the Inspector General for oversight: $5,090,278 in fiscal year 2026, with a 2.2% increase each subsequent year

    Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

    Coast Guard (SEC. 100001, starting on page 957)

    All funds are for fiscal year 2025 and remain available until September 30, 2029.

    • Fixed wing aircraft and related expenses: $571,500,000
    • Rotary wing aircraft and related expenses: $1,283,000,000
    • Long-range unmanned aircraft systems and related expenses: $140,000,000
    • Offshore Patrol Cutters and related expenses: $4,300,000,000
    • Fast Response Cutters and related expenses: $1,000,000,000
    • Polar Security Cutters and related expenses: $4,300,000,000
    • Arctic Security Cutters and domestic icebreakers and related expenses: $4,978,000,000
    • Shoreside infrastructure: $3,154,500,000
    • Aviation, cutter, shoreside facility depot maintenance, and C5I service maintenance: $1,300,000,000
    • Equipment and services for interdicting and securing the maritime border: $180,000,000

    Air Traffic Control Staffing and Modernization (SEC. 100007, starting on page 970)

    All funds are for fiscal year 2025 and remain available until September 30, 2029.

    • Air traffic control tower and terminal radar approach control facility replacement: $2,160,000,000
    • Radar systems replacement: $3,000,000,000
    • Telecommunications infrastructure and systems replacement: $4,750,000,000
    • Runway safety projects, airport surface surveillance projects, and airport ground surveillance system replacement: $500,000,000
    • Power systems and fuel storage tank replacement: $150,000,000
    • Navigation and landing systems replacement: $200,000,000
    • Automation systems replacement: $500,000,000
    • Air traffic controller staffing: $2,500,000,000
    • Air traffic control specialist training and development: $240,000,000

    John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts (SEC. 100008, starting on page 974)

    • Capital repair and restoration projects: $50,000,000

  • The “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” – Our Immigration & Fiscal Reforms

    📊 Fiscal Impact Formula

    ΔDebt = ΔSpending – ΔRevenue
    ΔSpending ↑
    More Spending

    ΔRevenue ↓
    Less Revenue

    ➡️ Result: Rising National Debt

    Our equation summarizes a key economic concern: when federal spending increases while revenues fall, the structural deficit widens, and the national debt grows.
    The “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” exemplifies this dynamic, raising long-term fiscal sustainability issues unless matched with offsetting policies or significant economic growth.

    The “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” is making headlines—but what if we could make it smarter, safer, and more fiscally sound? This proposal reshapes H.R. 1 into a bold new vision for America’s future—where immigration reform, economic growth, and national security align.

    At the Department of Technology, we focus on technology, science, and mathematics—not partisan politics. For the sake of clarity and brevity, the financial implications of the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” can be summarized with a simple equation:

    ΔDebt = ΔSpending – ΔRevenue
    In the context of the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” the simultaneous expansion of spending and reduction in federal revenue creates a structural imbalance—driving the debt trajectory upward without offsetting economic growth or fiscal discipline.

    📊 Why Our Equation is Accurate:

    ΔDebt = ΔSpending – ΔRevenue

    (↑ Spending + ↓ Revenue → ↑ National Debt)

    🔺 Increased Spending

    • Defense & Military: Shipbuilding, munitions, cybersecurity, border operations (Title II)
    • Agriculture & Rural Investment: Subsidies, conservation, infrastructure (Title I)
    • Healthcare: Medicaid/CHIP changes, Medicare payment updates (Title IV, Subtitle D)
    • Border Security: New ICE personnel, vehicles, detention centers (Titles VI & VII)
    • Farm Subsidies: Expanded Price Loss Coverage & base acres (Sec. 10101)

    🔻 Reduced Revenue

    • Tax Cuts: Permanent extension of Trump-era tax relief (Title XI, Subtitle A)
    • New Exemptions: No tax on tips, overtime, car loan interest (Sec. 110101–110104)
    • Expanded Credits: Child care, family leave, charitable deductions (Sec. 110105+)
    • Green Tax Repeals: Clean energy incentives eliminated (Sec. 112001–112015)
    • Fee Reductions: EPA, DOE, and energy permitting fees rescinded (Titles IV & VIII)

    ➡️ Conclusion

    Result: Rising national debt due to increased spending and decreased revenue.

    Under our expanded proposal, immigration enforcement targets only violent criminal non-U.S. citizens, prioritizing public safety without bloated detention budgets. Meanwhile, a pathway to legalization is created for immigrants who entered the U.S. before January 1, 2020, with requirements for clean records, tax compliance, and background checks. It’s a humane approach—integrated with smart fiscal policy, including the introduction of a Department of Technology to drive innovation and cost-effective government investment.

    This reimagined version of the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” honors the bill’s ambition while eliminating unnecessary spending and replacing fear-based immigration policies with data-driven, revenue-positive solutions. It protects American jobs, fortifies the economy, and ensures long-term sustainability without sacrificing our values.

    Discover how this improved version of H.R. 1 transforms the “One Big Beautiful Bill” into a truly responsible blueprint for American prosperity.

    Click here to explore the full proposal now.

    BILLS-119hr1ehDownload

    How the above Bill Increases the U.S. Deficit

    1. Major Tax Cuts (Reduces Government Revenue)

    The bill extends or expands many tax breaks, which means the federal government will collect less money:

    • Keeps in place the lower income tax rates that were set to expire after 2025.
    • Keeps the higher standard deduction, reducing taxable income for most households.
    • Increases and extends the child tax credit, which gives families more money back on their taxes.
    • Extends a large tax break for business owners (the 20% deduction on pass-through income).
    • Increases the amount of inheritance and gifts that can be passed tax-free.
    • Reduces the number of people affected by the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT).
    • Creates new tax exemptions for tips, overtime, and interest on car loans.
    • Expands tax credits for family leave, child care, and adoption.
    • Makes student loan payments made by employers permanently tax-free for workers.
    • Introduces “Trump Accounts” that allow tax-free savings for education, housing, and small business.
    • Significantly expands Health Savings Account (HSA) benefits.
    • Eliminates or limits several clean energy tax credits, which removes funding sources that helped offset earlier spending.

    These tax cuts could cost over $3 trillion over 10 years, based on similar past legislation.

    2. New and Increased Spending

    Health Care:

    • Gives new tax credits to employers for offering specific types of health insurance plans.
    • Expands what can be paid for tax-free through Health Savings Accounts.
    • Allows older adults (on Medicare) to continue contributing to HSAs.
    • Offers tax breaks for gym memberships and other wellness expenses.

    Defense and Military:

    • Increases funding for the Department of Defense across multiple areas, including:
      • New nuclear weapons systems (like ICBMs, bombers, and submarines).
      • Shipbuilding, missile defense, and military readiness.
      • Border operations and cybersecurity upgrades.
    • Also includes new funds for:
      • Air traffic controller hiring and training.
      • Upgrades to the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts.

    This new military and defense-related spending adds up to hundreds of billions of dollars.

    3. Attempted Cost Reductions (Offsetting Cuts)

    The bill includes some spending cuts, but they are relatively small compared to the tax cuts and spending increases:

    • Cuts funding from clean energy, environmental programs, and the Inflation Reduction Act.
    • Reduces funding for green vehicle programs and climate resilience efforts.
    • Introduces stricter work and eligibility rules for Medicaid and food assistance programs.
    • Limits eligibility for some programs to U.S. citizens and certain legal residents.
    • These changes may save tens of billions of dollars, but not nearly enough to offset the tax cuts or defense spending.

    4. Debt Limit Increase

    • The bill raises the federal debt ceiling by $4 trillion, allowing the government to borrow significantly more.
    • This confirms the expected impact of large new deficits.

    Total Estimated Fiscal Impact (10-Year Window)

    Category Estimated Fiscal Impact
    Major tax cuts -$3.0 to -$3.5 trillion
    Defense and military spending -$0.5 to -$1.0 trillion
    Health care and family benefits -$0.3 to -$0.5 trillion
    Offsetting cuts (savings) +$0.3 to +$0.5 trillion
    Net deficit increase -$3.5 to -$4.5 trillion

    (Note: These estimates are based on comparable historical policy costs and may vary depending on implementation and economic conditions.)

    Summary

    The bill significantly cuts taxes and increases federal spending—especially on defense and health-related benefits—without enough cost-cutting to make up the difference. As a result, it would substantially increase the U.S. budget deficit, likely by between $3.5 and $4.5 trillion over the next decade.

  • Why the H.R.3831 – AI Disclosure Act of 2023 is a Perfect Example of Bad AI Legislation

    Why the H.R.3831 – AI Disclosure Act of 2023 is a Perfect Example of Bad AI Legislation

    The H.R.3831 – AI Disclosure Act of 2023, introduced by Representative Torres on June 5, 2023, aims to mandate that generative AI disclose that its output has been generated by AI. While the bill’s intent is clear—requiring AI-generated content to carry a disclaimer—it falls short in several critical areas, making it a perfect example of bad AI legislation amongst many AI legislation from other lawmakers. (See at the end of this blog post our examples of other bad AI legislation)

    1. Constitutional Alignment

    The AI Disclosure Act raises significant concerns about constitutional alignment, particularly regarding free speech and privacy rights. The bill mandates a broad and compulsory disclaimer on AI-generated content: “Disclaimer: this output has been generated by artificial intelligence” (H.R. 3831, Sec. 2(a)). This blanket requirement could potentially infringe on First Amendment rights by compelling speech without sufficient justification. Additionally, the lack of clear guidelines on how this disclaimer interacts with existing privacy protections leaves room for legal challenges.

    2. Clear Purpose

    While the bill’s purpose is to inform the public when content is AI-generated, it lacks clarity in defining the specific problem it seeks to address. The broad application of the disclaimer does not differentiate between various contexts where AI is used, such as artistic creation versus factual reporting. This lack of nuance undermines the effectiveness of the legislation, making it more of a blanket regulation than a targeted solution.

    3. Interoperability and Collaboration

    The AI Disclosure Act is a federal mandate enforced by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), yet it does not promote collaboration with state and local governments or provide a framework for interoperability of AI systems across different jurisdictions (H.R. 3831, Sec. 2(b)). This could lead to a fragmented approach to AI regulation, where inconsistent enforcement across regions creates confusion and reduces the overall effectiveness of the law.

    4. Transparency and Accountability

    Although the bill mandates transparency by requiring AI-generated content to carry a disclaimer, it does not establish comprehensive guidelines for transparency in AI development and deployment. The enforcement powers granted to the FTC focus solely on ensuring compliance with the disclaimer requirement, without addressing broader issues of accountability for AI-related actions and decisions (H.R. 3831, Sec. 2(b)(2)).

    5. Ethical Considerations

    The AI Disclosure Act fails to incorporate ethical standards that address fairness, nondiscrimination, and privacy. By focusing narrowly on disclosure, the bill overlooks the need to address biases in AI systems and ensure equitable outcomes. This oversight could result in AI technologies that perpetuate existing societal inequalities, particularly if the disclaimer requirement is applied unevenly across different industries and communities.

    6. Public Engagement and Input

    The process of drafting the AI Disclosure Act does not appear to have included mechanisms for public consultation or stakeholder input. This lack of engagement is a missed opportunity to incorporate diverse perspectives and ensure that the legislation reflects the concerns and needs of the community. Without public input, the bill risks being out of touch with the realities faced by those most affected by AI technologies.

    7. Data Protection and Privacy

    Data protection is a critical aspect of AI legislation, yet the AI Disclosure Act does not address this issue adequately. The bill’s focus on content disclaimers does not include provisions for data protection measures related to AI-generated content or the data used to train AI systems. This omission leaves significant gaps in the regulatory framework, potentially exposing individuals to privacy violations.

    8. Compliance and Enforcement

    The enforcement mechanism for the AI Disclosure Act is centered on the FTC, which is tasked with treating violations of the disclaimer requirement as unfair or deceptive acts (H.R. 3831, Sec. 2(b)(1)). However, the bill does not outline clear compliance requirements beyond the disclaimer, nor does it establish robust enforcement measures for noncompliance. This lack of detail weakens the legislation’s ability to ensure meaningful oversight and accountability.

    9. Adaptability and Future Proofing

    AI technologies are evolving rapidly, and legislation must be adaptable to keep pace with these advancements. Unfortunately, the AI Disclosure Act lacks provisions for regular reviews and updates, making it vulnerable to becoming obsolete as AI continues to develop. Without adaptability, the legislation may fail to address new challenges and opportunities that arise in the AI landscape.

    10. Risk Assessment and Management

    The AI Disclosure Act does not include a framework for assessing and managing the risks associated with AI technologies. By focusing solely on disclosure, the bill overlooks the broader risks that AI poses to society, such as the potential for misuse or unintended consequences. A more comprehensive approach would include strategies for identifying and mitigating these risks.

    11. Education and Training

    Effective AI legislation should promote education and training for policymakers, businesses, and the public to ensure a thorough understanding of AI technologies. The AI Disclosure Act, however, does not address this need. Without initiatives to educate stakeholders, the legislation may be difficult to implement effectively and could lead to misunderstandings and misuse.

    12. International Standards and Cooperation

    AI is a global issue, and aligning U.S. legislation with international standards is crucial for maintaining competitiveness and ensuring ethical practices. The AI Disclosure Act does not encourage international cooperation on AI governance, nor does it align with international AI standards. This isolationist approach could hinder the U.S. from participating in and shaping global AI policies.

    13. Economic Impact

    The economic implications of the AI Disclosure Act are not thoroughly considered. The bill’s broad disclosure requirements could place an undue burden on businesses, particularly startups and small enterprises, without providing clear benefits. This could stifle innovation and reduce the competitiveness of U.S. companies in the global AI market.

    14. Whistleblower Protections

    Whistleblower protections are essential for encouraging the reporting of unethical or illegal AI practices. However, the AI Disclosure Act does not establish clear and enforceable whistleblower protection measures. Without these safeguards, individuals who expose AI-related wrongdoing may face retaliation, which could deter others from coming forward and allow harmful practices to continue unchecked.

    15. Oversight and Review

    Finally, the AI Disclosure Act lacks provisions for independent oversight and regular review. The bill does not establish an oversight body to monitor its implementation and impact, nor does it mandate regular audits to assess its effectiveness. This absence of oversight could lead to unchecked abuses of power and a lack of accountability in the AI space.

    Summary

    The H.R.3831 – AI Disclosure Act of 2023, despite its well-intentioned goal of promoting transparency in AI-generated content, is a deeply flawed piece of legislation. It fails to align with constitutional principles, lacks a clear and targeted purpose, and does not promote collaboration or adaptability. The bill’s narrow focus on disclaimers overlooks critical issues such as ethical considerations, data protection, and public engagement. To ensure that AI legislation is effective, comprehensive, and aligned with societal values, lawmakers must move beyond the simplistic approach of the AI Disclosure Act and craft laws that address the full spectrum of challenges and opportunities presented by AI technologies.

    Here are a series of scenarios where the AI Disclosure Act of 2023 (H.R. 3831) could potentially fail to address critical issues related to AI transparency and disclosure:

    Scenario 1: AI in Healthcare Decision-Making

    Situation: A hospital uses an AI system to assist doctors in diagnosing medical conditions and recommending treatment plans. Patients receive diagnoses and treatment suggestions without being informed that AI was involved in the decision-making process.

    Failure Point: The AI Disclosure Act of 2023 focuses primarily on generative AI and content creation, leaving a gap in industries like healthcare. As a result, patients may not know that an AI system influenced their medical treatment, leading to concerns about transparency, accountability, and trust in healthcare.

    Scenario 2: AI in Financial Services

    Situation: A bank uses AI algorithms to evaluate loan applications and determine interest rates. The bank does not disclose to customers that their loan approval and terms were determined by an AI system.

    Failure Point: Since the AI Disclosure Act of 2023 does not explicitly cover AI systems in financial services, it fails to require banks to inform customers about the AI-driven decisions affecting their financial lives. This lack of disclosure could lead to biases, unfair lending practices, and a lack of recourse for customers who feel they were unfairly treated by the AI system.

    Scenario 3: AI in Law Enforcement

    Situation: Law enforcement agencies use AI for predictive policing, identifying potential crime hotspots and individuals likely to commit crimes. Community members are not informed about the AI’s role in policing strategies and decisions.

    Failure Point: The AI Disclosure Act of 2023 is not designed to address AI use in law enforcement, leading to a lack of transparency in how AI-driven predictions influence policing practices. This could result in civil liberties being compromised, particularly in communities disproportionately affected by biased AI algorithms.

    Scenario 4: AI in Employment Decisions

    Situation: A company uses AI to screen job applications, filter candidates, and make hiring decisions. Job applicants are unaware that an AI system was responsible for evaluating their applications and determining their suitability for the position.

    Failure Point: The AI Disclosure Act of 2023 does not extend to AI systems used in human resources, meaning job applicants are left in the dark about the AI’s role in their employment prospects. This lack of disclosure could perpetuate biases in hiring processes and reduce trust in AI-driven HR tools.

    Scenario 5: AI in Social Media and Content Moderation

    Situation: A social media platform uses AI to moderate content, automatically flagging and removing posts that violate community guidelines. Users are not informed that AI is responsible for these actions, nor do they have a clear way to appeal decisions made by the AI.

    Failure Point: While the AI Disclosure Act of 2023 addresses generative AI, it does not adequately cover AI systems used in content moderation. This could lead to users being unfairly censored without understanding the AI’s role, creating a lack of accountability and potential harm to free speech.

    Scenario 6: AI in Government Services

    Situation: A government agency uses AI to process applications for public benefits, such as social security or unemployment benefits. Applicants are not informed that an AI system was involved in the decision to approve or deny their benefits.

    Failure Point: The AI Disclosure Act of 2023 does not require disclosure in government services, which can lead to a lack of transparency in how citizens’ applications are processed. This could result in people being unfairly denied benefits or not understanding why their applications were rejected.

    Scenario 7: AI in Advertising and Consumer Targeting

    Situation: An online retailer uses AI to analyze consumer data and personalize advertisements, leading to targeted marketing campaigns. Consumers are unaware that AI-driven data analysis influenced the ads they see and the products recommended to them.

    Failure Point: While the AI Disclosure Act of 2023 addresses generative AI in content creation, it does not mandate transparency in AI-driven consumer targeting. This could lead to ethical concerns about privacy, manipulation, and consumer rights, as individuals may not realize the extent to which AI influences their purchasing decisions.

    Scenario 8: AI in Education

    Situation: An educational institution uses AI to grade assignments and provide personalized learning experiences. Students and parents are not informed that an AI system is responsible for these educational decisions.

    Failure Point: The AI Disclosure Act of 2023 does not cover AI applications in education, resulting in a lack of transparency for students and parents. This could lead to questions about the fairness and accuracy of AI-driven grading and learning assessments, undermining trust in educational institutions.

    Scenario 9: AI in Real Estate

    Situation: Real estate companies use AI to assess property values and recommend prices to buyers and sellers. Clients are unaware that AI algorithms were used to determine these values.

    Failure Point: The AI Disclosure Act of 2023 does not require disclosure in the real estate industry, meaning clients may be unaware that AI influenced the pricing of their property. This lack of transparency could lead to distrust in real estate transactions and concerns about the accuracy of AI assessments.

    Scenario 10: AI in Customer Service

    Situation: A telecommunications company uses AI-powered chatbots to handle customer inquiries and complaints. Customers do not realize they are interacting with an AI rather than a human agent.

    Failure Point: Although the AI Disclosure Act of 2023 addresses generative AI in communication, it may not fully cover AI in customer service scenarios. This could lead to customer dissatisfaction and confusion if they believe they are communicating with a human agent, especially in cases where the AI fails to resolve their issue.

    Summary of Failures

    The AI Disclosure Act of 2023 (H.R. 3831) primarily focuses on generative AI in content creation and communication. However, it fails to address AI applications in critical areas like healthcare, finance, law enforcement, employment, social media moderation, government services, consumer targeting, education, real estate, and customer service. These gaps in coverage could lead to significant transparency issues, ethical concerns, and public distrust in AI systems across various industries.

    BILLS-118hr3831ihDownload

    Notable examples of poorly crafted AI legislation, along with explanations for why they are considered flawed:

    1. H.R. 3831 AI Disclosure Act of 2023 (USA)

    • Why it’s flawed: To reiterate, this legislation requires companies to disclose the use of AI in their products and services. However, the bill’s language is vague, leading to confusion about what constitutes “AI” and when disclosure is necessary. This could result in excessive compliance burdens for companies and stifle innovation. Moreover, the bill does not address the specific risks or benefits associated with AI, making it more of a blanket requirement than a targeted regulatory measure.

    2. AI Act (European Union)

    • Why it’s flawed: The EU’s AI Act attempts to classify AI systems into categories of risk (e.g., unacceptable, high, and minimal risk). While well-intentioned, the act’s broad and rigid classification system fails to account for the nuanced and context-specific nature of AI applications. For instance, a “high-risk” AI system in one context may not pose the same risks in another. This one-size-fits-all approach could lead to overregulation of harmless technologies or underregulation of more dangerous ones. Additionally, the compliance costs for companies could be prohibitive, particularly for smaller firms, potentially stifling innovation within the EU.

    3. SB 1047 (California, USA)

    • Why it’s flawed: This bill is critiqued for being overly complex and difficult to interpret, leading to potential legal ambiguities. Its heavy-handed regulatory approach imposes significant compliance burdens without providing clear guidelines or support for companies. The law’s focus on AI systems’ potential harms fails to balance these concerns with the need to foster innovation and technological advancement. It also lacks a robust framework for enforcement and monitoring, leaving gaps in its practical implementation.

    4. Facial Recognition Technology Moratorium Act (USA)

    • Why it’s flawed: This legislation proposed a blanket moratorium on the use of facial recognition technology by federal agencies. While it aimed to address privacy and civil liberties concerns, the act was criticized for its overly broad scope, which could hinder the development of beneficial AI applications. By not distinguishing between different contexts or uses of facial recognition (e.g., public safety vs. commercial applications), the bill potentially stifles innovation and prevents the government from utilizing AI in ways that could enhance security and efficiency.

    5. Algorithmic Accountability Act of 2019 (USA)

    • Why it’s flawed: This act required companies to conduct impact assessments of their AI systems for potential biases and risks. While the goal of promoting transparency and accountability in AI is commendable, the legislation was criticized for being overly prescriptive without providing clear guidance on how companies should conduct these assessments. The act’s requirements could be especially burdensome for smaller companies, potentially stifling innovation. Moreover, it failed to consider the varying levels of risk associated with different AI applications, treating all AI systems as equally problematic.

    6. AI Regulation (South Korea)

    • Why it’s flawed: South Korea’s early attempts at AI regulation focused heavily on protecting consumers from AI-related risks. However, the regulations were criticized for being overly stringent and not sufficiently aligned with the needs of the AI industry. The strict rules, combined with heavy penalties for non-compliance, discouraged companies from developing AI technologies within South Korea, leading to a potential loss of competitive advantage in the global AI market.

    7. Brazil’s AI Law (Draft Bill 21/20)

    • Why it’s flawed: This draft bill aimed to regulate AI by establishing a comprehensive legal framework. However, it was criticized for being too ambitious and lacking focus. The bill attempted to address all aspects of AI, from ethical considerations to technical standards, resulting in a complex and unwieldy piece of legislation. The lack of clear definitions and practical guidelines made it difficult for companies to comply, potentially hindering AI innovation in Brazil. Additionally, the bill did not provide a phased or gradual approach to implementation, which could overwhelm businesses and regulators alike.

    Key Issues Across These Examples:

    1. Vague Definitions and Requirements: Many of these laws suffer from a lack of clear definitions, leading to confusion and inconsistent application. This vagueness can result in excessive compliance burdens, legal challenges, and hinder innovation.
    2. Overregulation: Several of these laws impose strict or blanket regulations without considering the context or varying levels of risk associated with different AI applications. Overregulation can stifle innovation, especially for smaller companies that may struggle with the compliance costs.
    3. Lack of Practical Guidelines: Even when the intent behind the legislation is sound, a lack of clear guidelines for implementation can lead to confusion and difficulties in compliance. This can result in companies either over-complying to avoid penalties or under-complying due to a lack of understanding.
    4. Failure to Balance Innovation and Regulation: A common flaw is the failure to balance the need for regulation with the importance of fostering innovation. Overly stringent regulations can discourage companies from developing or deploying AI technologies, potentially putting countries at a disadvantage in the global AI race.
    5. Inflexibility: Some legislation takes a rigid approach to AI regulation, not allowing for flexibility as AI technologies evolve. This can lead to outdated or ineffective regulations that do not address the actual risks or benefits of AI.

    These examples illustrate the challenges of crafting effective AI legislation and highlight the importance of creating laws that are clear, balanced, and adaptable to the rapid pace of technological advancement.