The “AMERICAN LEAN ACT”
Full Transparency is what Government requires, therefore below are the Drafts of each Bill as part of the American Lean Act
THE AMERICAN LEAN ACT
AN ACT
To establish an operational turnaround framework for the federal government; to mandate root-cause analysis in the legislative process; to optimize administrative overhead; to institutionalize Lean management and DMAIC practices within Congressional operations; and to preserve essential front-line services through structural optimization without increasing the national tax burden.
CONSTITUITIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT
Congress enacts this Act pursuant to its authority under Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 (The Power to Tax and Spend for the General Welfare), Clause 3 (The Commerce Clause), and Clause 18 (The Necessary and Proper Clause) of the United States Constitution.
PART I: THE CORPORATE TURNAROUND CHARTER
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the "American Lean Act".
SECTION 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.
(a) Findings.—Congress finds the following:
The federal government operates with systemic inefficiencies, frequently allocating taxpayer capital to fund the symptoms of societal problems rather than isolating and resolving their root causes.
Traditional legislative packages are excessively lengthy, intentionally complex, and designed to obscure waste, preventing transparent auditing and accountable governance.
Bureaucratic administrative bloat absorbs critical resources before they reach front-line citizens, teachers, military personnel, and families.
Private-sector organizations successfully utilize Lean manufacturing principles and the DMAIC (Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve, Control) framework to eliminate waste, standardize quality, and optimize delivery without increasing base costs.
(b) Purpose.—The purpose of this Act is to execute a structural change-management strategy across the legislative and executive branches. This Act serves as a definitive proof of concept to demonstrate that targeted, short-format legislation can systematically dismantle administrative friction, establish transparent performance loops, and maximize downstream fiscal savings.
SECTION 3. THE MANDATORY LEGISLATIVE BINDING RULES (THE GUARDRAILS).
Every Title, Section, and provision within this Act, and all future legislative expansions appended to this framework, must conform strictly to the following four self-imposed operational constraints:
The Brevity and Target Mandate.—Each provision must be short, written in plain language, and targeted exclusively at an isolated root cause. It shall not address secondary or tertiary symptoms.
The Fiscal Cap.—No provision within this Act shall increase the federal tax burden, create new tax brackets, or authorize new federal appropriations. Operational implementation costs are strictly limited to existing internal Washington agency man-hours.
The Service Shield.—Arbitrary or blind horizontal budget cuts to essential citizen-facing services are strictly prohibited. Reductions must be achieved solely by bypassing, consolidating, or eliminating redundant administrative management layers.
The Metrics and Feedback Loop.—No program or process may be altered under this Act without the concurrent implementation of a live, public-facing digital dashboard to audit performance metrics and enforce an ongoing operational control loop.
PART II: THE CHANGE MANAGEMENT ROADMAP
SECTION 4. TABLE OF TITLES.
The structural transformation of federal processes under this Act is organized into the following logical change-management phases:
PHASE 1: DEFINE & MEASURE (Exposing System Flaws & Revenue Leakage)
TITLE I: The Child-Centered Custody Transparency and Shared Parenting Accountability (CCTSPA) Act.
TITLE II: The Academic Excellence and Teacher Pay Act (AETPA).
PHASE 2: ANALYZE & IMPROVE (Optimizing Critical Infrastructure)
TITLE III: The County-Line First Congressional Districting Act.
TITLE VI: The Aviation Versatility and Multi-Role Readiness Act.
PHASE 3: CONTROL & STANDARDIZE (The Institutional Guardrails)
TITLE IV: The Government Halt on Obsolete and Stagnant Tax-Spending (GHOST) Act.
TITLE V: The Prohibiting High-Administrative Non-Transparent Operational Mismanagement (PHANTOM) Act.
TITLE VII: The Congressional Problem-Solving and Root Cause Accountability Act.
PART III: LEGISLATIVE TITLES
TITLE I—CHILD-CENTERED CUSTODY TRANSPARENCY AND SHARED PARENTING ACCOUNTABILITY ACT (CCTSPA)
SEC. 101. AMENDMENT TO TITLE IV-D FISCAL INCENTIVES.
(a) Root Cause Isolation.—The root cause of prolonged, highly litigated domestic relations cases is identified as the federal financial incentive structure under Title IV-D of the Social Security Act, which inadvertently rewards states based on the maximization of child support collection amounts, disincentivizing equal shared-parenting arrangements.
(b) The Correction.—Section 458 of the Social Security Act is amended to mandate that state Title IV-D funding allocations are contingent upon the implementation of a rebuttable presumption of equal (50/50) shared legal and physical custody, minimizing state-level litigation overhead.
(c) Downstream Cascade.—By establishing equal parenting as the baseline standard, family court dockets shall be optimized, reducing county-level litigation man-hours and lowering downstream domestic administrative spending.
(d) Control Loop.—Each state department of human services shall publish a monthly public dashboard detailing the exact allocation of Title IV-D funds received versus the percentage of equal-custody rulings rendered.
TITLE II—ACADEMIC EXCELLENCE AND TEACHER PAY ACT (AETPA)
SEC. 201. DIRECT CLASSROOM FUNDING MANDATE.
(a) Root Cause Isolation.—The root cause of stagnating teacher compensation and declining public education quality is the disproportionate growth of non-instructional, mid-level school district administrative personnel.
(b) The Correction.—Any local educational agency receiving federal funds under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act must demonstrate that a minimum of 75 percent of all federal dollars received goes directly to classroom instruction and teacher compensation, bypassing mid-level administrative overhead.
(c) Downstream Cascade.—Direct-to-classroom funding increases real wages for educators, stabilizes teacher retention, and improves classroom student-to-teacher metrics without creating new educational appropriations.
(d) Control Loop.—The Department of Education shall establish a centralized digital dashboard tracking the exact dollar-for-dollar breakdown of administrative versus classroom spending for every public school district in the United States.
TITLE III—COUNTY-LINE FIRST CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTING ACT
SEC. 301. STANDARDIZED REDISTRICTING METRICS.
(a) Root Cause Isolation.—The root cause of electoral mapping polarization and excessive litigation costs is the practice of splitting existing county and municipal boundaries to engineer artificial legislative districts.
(b) The Correction.—In the drawing of congressional districts, states must follow a standardized mathematical algorithm that prioritizes whole county boundaries. A county line may only be crossed when the population threshold strictly requires division under federal apportionment laws.
(c) Downstream Cascade.—Eliminating erratic boundary lines optimizes local election administration, minimizes state redistricting litigation expenses, and creates logically clustered regional districts.
(d) Control Loop.—The Federal Election Commission shall publish geometric compactness and county-integrity scores for all fifty states prior to any federal election cycle.
TITLE IV—GOVERNMENT HALT ON OBSOLETE AND STAGNANT TAX-SPENDING (GHOST) ACT
SEC. 401. THE MONTHLY BINARY SUNSET SCHEDULE.
(a) Root Cause Isolation.—The root cause of baseline federal spending inflation is the permanent accumulation of unauthorized, sunsetted, or redundant federal programs that continue to receive annual appropriations without floor debate.
(b) The Correction.—The House and Senate shall dedicate the final legislative week of every calendar month exclusively to a binary floor vote on stagnant programs identified by the Government Accountability Office (GAO). Congress must make a transparent choice on each program: Standardize (fully reauthorize with updated lean metrics) or Sunset (immediately eliminate the program's administrative funding).
(c) Downstream Cascade.—This automatic operational schedule systematically prunes dead weight from the federal budget, freeing up hundreds of billions of dollars in dormant capital through existing congressional calendars.
(d) Control Loop.—The live votes, program names, and exact dollar amounts saved through the monthly sunset schedule shall be streamed to a public "Exorcising the Ghosts" web platform.
TITLE V—PROHIBITING HIGH-ADMINISTRATIVE NON-TRANSPARENT OPERATIONAL MISMANAGEMENT (PHANTOM) ACT
SEC. 501. OVERHEAD RESTRICTIONS ON FEDERAL GRANTEES.
(a) Root Cause Isolation.—The root cause of federal grant money leakage is the exploitation of indirect-cost recovery rates by intermediate non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and third-party contractors, hiding administrative profits inside public-good funding.
(b) The Correction.—No federal grant money may be distributed to any entity whose internal administrative overhead, executive salaries, and indirect operations exceed 10 percent of the total grant award.
(c) Downstream Cascade.—Enforcing strict administrative limits ensures public money directly funds tangible project outcomes (e.g., actual infrastructure or medical research) rather than corporate non-profit bureaucracies.
(d) Control Loop.—Grantees must submit digital ledger receipts for all expenditures, to be displayed on an open-source federal grant registry.
TITLE VI—AVIATION VERSATILITY AND MULTI-ROLE READINESS ACT
SEC. 601. MANDATORY MULTI-ROLE CAPACITY DESIGN STANDARDS.
(a) Root Cause Isolation.—The root cause of escalating defense procurement budgets, redundant fleet sizes, and long-term logistics bloat is the practice of engineering single-mission aviation platforms that lack baseline operational versatility, forcing the federal government to fund separate, hyper-specialized airframes to complete individual tactical tasks.
(b) The Correction.—The Department of Defense shall mandate that all future military aviation platforms designed, developed, or procured using federal funds must be engineered from the ground up to be operationally certified to execute a minimum of five (5) distinct Mission Essential Tasks (METs), as defined by joint military readiness standards, prior to entering the production phase.
(c) Downstream Cascade.—Mandating a baseline of 5 METs per airframe forces multi-role versatility at the initial design phase. This small structural constraint eliminates the need for separate, single-mission support fleets, maximizes the utility of existing airborne assets, simplifies cross-branch training, and slashes trillions of dollars in long-term defense procurement and logistics overhead.
(d) Control Loop.—The Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Defense Acquisition Board shall audit and certify that an aviation platform strictly complies with the 5-MET design requirement before any contract moves past the initial Engineering and Manufacturing Development phase.
TITLE VII—CONGRESSIONAL PROBLEM-SOLVING AND ROOT CAUSE ACCOUNTABILITY ACT
SEC. 701. MANDATORY OPERATIONAL TRAINING.
(a) Root Cause Isolation.—The root cause of poor legislative design in Washington is that elected members and professional committee staff lack baseline professional training in modern problem-solving methodologies, process mapping, and root-cause isolation.
(b) The Correction.—Every newly elected Member of Congress and all professional committee staff shall, within the first 100 days of a new legislative session, complete a mandatory certification course in Lean management, Root Cause Analysis, and DMAIC frameworks.
(c) Downstream Cascade.—Institutionalizing these skills transforms the legislative branch's culture, forcing future bills to be structured around measurable, data-driven outcomes rather than ideological grandstanding.
(d) Control Loop.—The Clerk of the House and the Secretary of the Senate shall publish a public compliance roster documenting the training status of all members and staff.
TITLE VIII—MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
SEC. 801. SEVERABILITY.
If any provision of this Act, or the application of such provision to any person or circumstance, is held to be unconstitutional, the remainder of this Act shall not be affected thereby.
CHILD CENTERED CUSTODY TRANSPARENCY AND SHARED PARENTING ACCOUNTABILITY ACT BILL
To improve transparency, accountability, and gender-neutral decision-making in State custody proceedings through structured judicial documentation and performance-based federal funding alignment, and for other purposes.
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the "CCTSPA Act”: Child-Centered Custody Transparency and Shared Parenting Accountability Act.
SEC. 2. CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS.
Child custody determinations materially affect long-term mental health, educational attainment, economic productivity, and social stability.
Substantial peer-reviewed research demonstrates that children benefit from meaningful involvement of both parents and that fathers are not inherently less capable caregivers.
Persistent nationwide disparities in custody outcomes therefore indicate systemic bias rather than parental incapacity.
Current custody proceedings often rely on broad subjective standards without structured documentation, limiting transparency and meaningful appellate review.
Federal child support enforcement funding under Title IV-D was created to address systemic failures that existed decades ago but does not require gender-neutral custody practices or documented judicial reasoning.
Federal spending authority may be used to incentivize transparency, accountability, and child-centered outcomes without mandating custody determinations or preempting State family law.
Long-term reductions in federal dependency are expected as children raised with balanced parental involvement demonstrate improved mental health, higher lifetime earnings, higher education levels, reduced crime, and reduced reliance on public assistance.
As shown by the State of Kentucky’s 2018 act, similar legislation showed a significant reduction in divorce rates.
The cascading positive effects of this bill are yet incalculable as it will positively change many areas of American society.
SEC. 3. PURPOSES.
To require structured documentation of custody decisions in contested cases.
To incentivize gender-neutral adjudication and promote shared parenting outcomes consistent with each State’s own laws.
To reduce litigation, conflict, and unnecessary appeals.
To improve child well-being and long-term economic outcomes.
To replace outdated federal enforcement incentives with performance-based accountability.
SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.
Contested custody case: means any custody proceeding in which the parties do not jointly submit a complete parenting plan.
Custody Decision Data Includes: (a) Case status (Contested vs. Uncontested); (b) Resolution Type (Parental Agreement vs. Court-Ordered Determination); (c) Designation of primary parent; (d) Actual percentage of parenting time ordered; (e) Specific statutes/case law cited; (f) Presence of safety concerns each documented, and law cited if not used in the courts decision; (g) Education level of parents (statistical only).
Participating State: means any State electing to participate in this Act.
Qualified Parental Agreement: is any court-approved parenting plan jointly submitted by the parties. For funding purposes, these agreements shall be categorized by the same performance tiers as court-ordered determinations in Section 9.
Severe Child Abuse shall be defined by each Participating State based on their own applicable State laws and statutes.
SEC. 5. STRUCTURED CUSTODY FINDINGS REQUIREMENT.
As a condition of participation, each State shall require that in all contested custody cases the presiding judge issue written findings containing Custody Decision Data contemporaneously with the custody order. Nothing in this section shall alter judicial discretion or custody standards under State law.
SEC. 6. TERMINATION OF TITLE IV-D CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT FUNDING.
(a) Beginning twelve (12) months after enactment, no federal funds shall be obligated or expended to carry out Title IV-D of the Social Security Act for child support enforcement activities.
(b) Amounts that would otherwise have been made available under Title IV-D shall instead be made available under Section 7 of this Act.
SEC. 7. FAMILY COURT TRANSPARENCY AND SHARED PARENTING INCENTIVE PROGRAM.
(a) The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall establish a voluntary program providing payments to States that comply with this Act.
(b) States declining participation shall receive no replacement funds.
(c) Eligibility requires certification of: (1) Structured custody documentation under Section 5; (2) Policies prohibiting preferential treatment of either parent based on sex; (3) Annual reporting of contested custody outcomes.
SEC. 8. ALLOCATION AND CENSUS-BASED DISTRIBUTION.
(a) Fair Division: Total federal funding for payouts shall be divided among Participating States based on U.S. Census Bureau population data, ensuring funding is proportional to the size of the State rather than the number of active court cases.
(b) Performance Allocation:
1. The Agreement Track: The 75% payout shall only apply to Qualified Parental Agreements. Any agreement falling outside the 45/55 range shall be processed under the Adjudication Track (State Averages) to ensure it does not artificially inflate state performance metrics by reflecting the reduced burden on courts and improved long-term outcomes associated with cooperative parenting agreements.
2. The Adjudication Track: For all cases ending in a court-ordered determination (where parents did not agree), the remaining funding shall be distributed based on the State Average performance against the Unified Performance Scale in Section 9.
Forty percent (40%) based on progress toward gender-neutral primary custody outcomes.
Forty percent (40%) based on progress toward equal parenting time.
Twenty percent (20%) for court audit personnel, compliance reporting systems, and appellate enforcement incentives.
(c) The Efficiency Dividend: Once a Participating State achieves a sustained metric of 55/45 gender-neutral primary custody and 55/45 equal parenting time, the allocation for District Court Administration (DCA) and audit personnel shall be reduced to ten percent (10%), as the workload associated with high-conflict litigation is reduced. The remaining ten percent (10%) shall be returned to the Federal Treasury to reduce federal spending.
SEC. 9. UNIFIED PERFORMANCE SCALE AND RAMP-UP PERIOD.
(a) SEC. 9(a) UNIFIED PERFORMANCE SCALE (STATE AVERAGES).
Funding for the Adjudication Track shall be determined by the annual statewide average of court-ordered custody outcomes.
Calculation: The average is calculated by totaling the awarded parenting time for the secondary parent across all court-ordered (non-agreement) cases and dividing by the total number of such cases.
Target: To receive the maximum 100% payout for the Adjudication Track, the Participating State must achieve a statewide average of 45% to 55% parenting time for both genders by Year Five.
(b) Progression Ramp-Up Period: To allow for administrative transition and judicial training, a Participating State shall receive maximum funding provided they meet the following minimum annual progression benchmarks for gender-neutrality and parenting time:
Year One: Minimum 80/20 state average outcomes.
Year Two: Minimum 70/30 state average outcomes.
Year Three: Minimum 60/40 state average outcomes.
Year Four: Minimum 50/50 or 45/55 state average outcomes
Year Five and Beyond: Sustained 50/50 or 45/55 state average outcomes
(b) Standard Scale: Following the ramp-up period:
State average Outcomes of forty-five percent (45%) or greater shall receive maximum payout.
State average Outcomes 60/40 or greater shall receive partial funding of 66%.
State average Outcomes 70/30 or greater disparity shall receive reduced funding of 33%.
State average Outcomes any less than 70/30 will receive no funding.
SEC. 10. AUDIT AND APPELLATE ENFORCEMENT.
Participating States shall establish court audit personnel reporting to Chief Judges. Compliance reports shall be transmitted to appellate courts for a total of 10%. Appellate courts may receive incentive funding for remands or reversals where lower courts fail to meet documentation standards up to 10%.
SEC. 11. EXCLUSION OF SEVERE CHILD ABUSE CASES.
(a) Custody cases involving substantiated Severe Child Abuse (as defined by State law) requiring sole custody shall be excluded from performance calculations.
(b) In any such excluded case, the presiding judge shall issue written findings identifying:
(1) The specific statutory basis under State law supporting sole custody; (2) The evidentiary record relied upon; and (3) The factual findings establishing severe abuse.
(c) Allegations alone shall not qualify a case for exclusion. Only judicial findings supported by evidence and entered into the record may trigger exclusion.
(d) The states judicial branch shall audit all abuse finding on appeal to determine whether the state severe child abuse case standard is met.
SEC. 12. EXCLUSION OF UNCONTESED CASES.
(a) Custody cases involving an uncontested nature requiring sole custody shall be excluded from performance calculations.
SEC. 13. STANDALONE ENACTMENT AND ANTI-COMMINGLING MANDATE.
(a) INDEPENDENT CONSIDERATION: In recognition of the profound national impact of this Act, it is the directive of Congress that this measure be considered, debated, and voted upon strictly as a standalone bill.
(b) PROHIBITION OF ATTACHMENTS: No unrelated legislative provisions, riders, or amendments—whether financial, policy-based, or otherwise—shall be appended to this Act during any stage of the legislative process
(c) OMNIBUS EXCLUSION AND SEVERABILITY.: This Act shall not be incorporated into any omnibus spending bill, multi-subject legislative package, or continuing resolution. Should any portion of this Act be incorporated into a broader legislative vehicle, such incorporation shall be considered a violation of the Statutory Intent, and this Act shall be extracted and restored to its status as an independent measure for a direct, recorded up-or-down vote.
SEC. 14. STATE AUTONOMY PRESERVED.
Nothing in this Act shall: (1) Mandate custody outcomes; (2) Preempt State family law; (3) Alter parental rights; (4) Limit judicial discretion.
SEC. 15. EFFECTIVE DATE.
This Act shall take effect twelve (12) months after enactment.
Sponsor: Keith Barton, CD-23 Texas.
ACADEMIC EXCELLENCE AND TEACHER PAY ACT
AN ACT
To amend the Every Student Succeeds Act and the Department of Education Organization Act to eliminate administrative process waste, establish structural funding controls, and optimize core student achievement.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the "AETPA".
SECTION 2. DEFINE PHASE: SYSTEM IDENTIFICATION AND RE-ORDERING.
(a) STATEMENT OF STRUCTURAL DEFECTS.—Congress finds administrative layers that do not directly contribute to measurable classroom instructional outcomes—
(1) wherein substantial portions of educational expenditures are consumed by state and district-level administrative overhead before reaching classroom instructional functions;
(2) early overreliance on digital learning devices in foundational childhood education may negatively affect attention development, handwriting proficiency, reading retention, and classroom engagement; and
(3) the expansion of non-core elective coursework that does not consistently demonstrate measurable contributions to literacy, STEM readiness, workforce preparedness, or long-term educational outcomes.
(b) CORE PURPOSE.— The operational objective of this Act is to restructure the federal K-12 funding distribution process into a direct-to-campus allocation model designed to maximize classroom instructional funding efficiency and improve equitable student resource access across all economic backgrounds.
SECTION 3. MEASURE PHASE: ESTABLISHING THE VALUE STREAM AND RECIPIENT NODE.
(a) ELIMINATION OF DISTRICT INTERCEPTION.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the federal government shall calculate formula grant allocations, including Title I and IDEA allocations, based strictly on the raw student registration roster per individual school campus utilizing National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) campus identification codes.
(b) STATE PASS-THROUGH MANDATE.—
(1) PROCESSING NODE DESIGNATION.—The State Education Agency (SEA) of each state shall function exclusively as an administrative processing node and check-issuer for funds distributed under this Act.
(2) TOTAL CAP ON ADMIN SKIM.— A state receiving federal K-12 formula grants may not withhold, reallocate, or divert any portion of the campus allocation for state-level or district-level administrative expenditures. The state shall distribute 100 percent of the calculated campus allocation directly to the respective school campus operational account within 30 days of federal receipt.
(3) SEPARATE OPERATIONAL FINANCING.—If a state or local school board elects to maintain non-instructional administrative personnel, compliance managers, or non-instructional consulting or administrative personnel, such overhead must be funded entirely out of state or local tax revenues.
SECTION 4. ANALYZE PHASE: THE 75% INSTRUCTIONAL VAULT BOUNDARY AND DEFECT TRACING.
(a) THE VAULT CONSTRAINT.—A school principal receiving federal direct-to-principal dollars shall deposit 100 percent of such funds into a dedicated campus escrow account, which must be spent exclusively on direct instructional costs.
(b) INSTRUCTIONAL COST LIMITATIONS.— Direct instructional costs are restricted strictly to—
(1) classroom teacher salaries and performance-based merit compensation;
(2) physical textbooks, paper, and analog manual writing supplies; and
(3) classroom material inputs for core subjects and designated data-backed cognitive electives.
(c) DEFINE VALUE-ADD CLASSROOM OUTPUTS.—
(1) CORE SUBJECTS.—The core foundations are defined as Math, Science, English, and History.
(2) AUTHORIZED INSTRUCTIONAL EXCEPTIONS.— The following instructional categories are authorized under the instructional funding constraint based on demonstrated educational, cognitive, workforce, or long-term student development outcomes, including;
(A) High-Value Arts: Instrumental and vocal performance music (band and choir);
(B) Cognitive Systems: Standalone world language lines;
(C) Strategic reasoning and applied logic programs focused on pattern recognition, spatial analysis, and long-range problem solving;
(D) Trade Engineering: Hands-on vocational trade labs and home economics; and
(E) The Financial Ledger: Mandatory, standalone personal financial literacy.
(d) INFRASTRUCTURE AND OVERHEAD BAN.— No portion of the campus instructional allocation account may be expended on district-level administrative facilities, non-instructional executive compensation, or non-classroom capital infrastructure projects.
SECTION 5. IMPROVE PHASE: DISMANTLING DEVICE BLOWOUTS AND SYNTAX REALIGNMENT.
(a) THE K-3 SCREEN-FREE instructional allocation requirement.— To support foundational literacy, handwriting development, and early classroom engagement, no federal grant funds distributed under this Act may be used to procure or deploy individually assigned digital tablets or laptops for students in Kindergarten through Third Grade. Elementary literacy and mathematics instruction must be executed exclusively via analog paper, print books, and manual handwriting.
(b) SYNTAX AS A REPLACEMENT LANGUAGE ELECTIVE.—
(1) TECHNICAL SUBSTITUTION LEVER.—In Grades 9 through 12, school campuses shall allow students to fulfill their graduation foreign language requirement by substituting a rigorous course in text-based computer programming languages.
(2) OBJECT-ORIENTED CODING CONSTRAINT.—To qualify for language funding under the instructional allocation requirement, computer science tracks must consist entirely of text-based, object-oriented syntax (Python, C++, or Java) written line-by-line. Federal instructional funding under this Act may not be used for non-text-based introductory coding platforms or non-technical software familiarity coursework. Keyboarding and touch-typing mechanics must be integrated directly into English and Language text composition classes rather than separate, isolated screen filler tracks.
SECTION 6. CONTROL PHASE: THE ANNUAL ACCURACY AUDIT AND ZERO-BASELINE LOCKS.
(a) TIMELINE MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT (MOE).—
(1) HISTORICAL BASE-PAY FLOOR.—To maintain eligibility for federal K-12 formula funding, a state and its local school districts must maintain their total state and local instructional expenditure per student at a level equal to or greater than the preceding fiscal year.
(2) NON-SUPPLANTATION PROHIBITION.—Federal direct-to-principal funds shall function strictly as an additive booster to supplement, not supplant, state and local instructional dollars. If a state lowers its base teacher salary scales or cuts local classroom supply budgets, the federal government shall automatically freeze 100 percent of that state's federal education funding pipeline.
(b) THE BINARY COMPLIANCE POST-AUDIT.—
(1) STATE REPORTING TRACK.—The state shall perform a streamlined, retroactive annual post-audit of each campus escrow account to verify compliance with the 75% Instructional Vault boundary.
(2) DEFECT REMEDIATION.— “If a principal fails the compliance audit by allocating federal funds toward unauthorized administrative expenditures or non-approved instructional categories, the state shall report the violation to the U.S. Treasury, and the campus's next federal allocation shall automatically be placed on an administrative hold until the process error is fully remediated.
(c) ZERO-BASELINE FORECAST PROTECTION.— Because expenditure recovery and funding realignment outcomes may vary annually, all funds redirected through this Act shall be applied exclusively toward active instructional operations, teacher compensation enhancements, or current-term educational expenditure, prohibiting any speculative future budgeting by local school boards.
COUNTY-LINE FIRST CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTING ACT
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the “County-Line First Congressional Districting Act.”
SEC. 2. CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS.
Congressional district boundaries materially affect voter representation, electoral confidence, and public trust.
Current redistricting practices often result in irregular, non-contiguous, or artificially shaped districts that obscure community representation.
These practices contribute to increased litigation, administrative costs, and voter confusion.
Advances in mapping technology have increased the ability to manipulate district boundaries for political outcomes rather than geographic or community coherence.
Congress has authority under Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution to regulate the manner of congressional elections.
A process-based approach to districting can improve transparency, reduce waste, and enhance public confidence without mandating electoral outcomes or preempting State authority.
SEC. 3. PURPOSES.
To establish a clear, repeatable process for congressional district formation.
To prioritize geographic continuity through the use of existing county boundaries.
To reduce litigation, administrative cost, and political manipulation in redistricting.
To improve voter clarity and confidence in representation.
To align federal standards with State-controlled implementation.
SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.
County Boundary: A legally recognized political subdivision of a State.
Target Population: The population required per congressional district as determined by the most recent decennial census.
Necessary Split: A division of a county only when required to meet the Target Population.
Participating State: Any State complying with this Act during its redistricting cycle.
SEC. 5. COUNTY-LINE FIRST REQUIREMENT.
(a) During the next redistricting cycle, each Participating State shall prioritize the formation of congressional districts using whole county boundaries.
(b) Counties may only be divided when mathematically necessary to achieve the Target Population for a congressional district.
(c) Where a county must be divided, the State retains full authority to determine the location and structure of such division.
(d) Nothing in this section shall dictate electoral outcomes, voter composition, or candidate eligibility.
SEC. 6. IMPLEMENTATION TIMING.
This Act shall apply beginning with the first redistricting cycle following enactment and shall not require alteration of existing congressional districts prior to that cycle.
SEC. 7. TRANSPARENCY AND REPORTING.
Participating States shall provide public documentation showing:
County boundaries used in district formation
Justification for any county splits
Population calculations used to determine district boundaries
SEC. 8. STATE AUTONOMY PRESERVED.
Nothing in this Act shall:
Mandate political outcomes
Preempt State redistricting authority
Require racial or demographic considerations
Limit State discretion in necessary boundary divisions
SEC. 9. EFFECTIVE DATE.
This Act shall take effect upon the next decennial redistricting cycle following enactment.
FEDERAL PROGRAM ACCOUNTABILITY, REAUTHORIZATION, AND WASTE ELIMINATION ACT BILL
A BILL
To establish a structured review and reauthorization process for federally funded programs operating without current authorization, to eliminate waste, restore accountability, and improve fiscal oversight, and for other purposes.
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the “GHOST Act” (Government Halt on Obsolete and Stagnant Tax-Spending).
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
For purposes of this Act:
Ghost Program means any federally funded program that:
(a) operates under an expired authorization; or
(b) continues to receive appropriations without formal reauthorization by Congress.
SEC. 3. CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS (THE ROOT CAUSE).
1. Define: The federal budget is currently burdened by a substantial number of “Ghost Programs”, which are federally funded programs operating under expired authorizations that continue to receive appropriations, constituting a significant and ongoing process waste.
Measure: The current lack of a standardized review schedule prevents the accurate measurement of program efficacy versus taxpayer cost.
Analyze: The root cause of this leak is "Bureaucratic Inertia", the default Congressional setting to "auto-pilot" funding rather than perform active oversight.
Improve/Control: Establishing a mandatory, monthly operational rhythm for the Top 24 Ghost Programs in annual cost will install the controls necessary to eliminate waste and restore fiscal integrity.
SEC. 4. PURPOSES.
To apply DMAIC methodologies to the most costly unauthorized federal expenditures.
To replace "Auto-Pilot" spending with a Standard Work audit schedule.
To achieve a multi-trillion dollar reduction in long-term debt through systematic Lean reviews.
SEC. 5. THE TOP 24 OPERATIONAL SCHEDULE.
(a) The List: The CBO shall provide a ranked list of the Top 24 Ghost Programs by cost.
(b) The Farming Out: The House Committee on Oversight and Accountability shall act as Project Manager, assigning two (2) programs per month to the Committees of Jurisdiction.
Assignments shall be made based on subject matter jurisdiction, committee expertise, and workload distribution to ensure efficient and balanced review.
(c) The Root Cause Audit: Each assigned Committee must use Root Cause Analysis to determine if the program is solving its intended problem or merely treating symptoms.
SEC. 6. THE BINARY DECISION (THE CONTROL PHASE).
(a) Mandatory Floor Discussion: The House shall hold a dedicated floor session every month to "Exorcise the Ghosts" (the two assigned programs).
(b) The Outcome: Every review must result in a direct vote to either:
Sunset: Terminate the process (Stop the waste).
Standardize: Re-authorize the program as permanent, provided it adopts the DMAIC reporting standards laid out in the Congressional Problem-Solving Act.
SEC. 7. TRANSPARENCY AND PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY.
(a) The Lean Dashboard: All findings, data measurements, and final votes shall be posted publicly to ensure the "American Lean" process is visible to the taxpayer.
(b) Failure to Comply: Any program not reviewed during its assigned month shall be flagged as "Non-Compliant Waste" in the public record.
NGO PERFORMANCE, ACCOUNTABILITY, AND OPERATIONAL TRANSPARENCY ACT
A BILL
To establish a structured performance review and outcome-based reauthorization process for non-governmental organizations receiving federal funds; to evaluate and reduce administrative waste; to ensure transparency in sub-grantee distribution; and for other purposes.
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the “PHANTOM Act” (Prohibiting High-Administrative Non-Transparent Operational Mismanagement).
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
For purposes of this Act:
Phantom NGO means any non-governmental organization (including nonprofits, charities, and contractors) that:
(a) receives 20% or more of its total annual revenue from federal grants or contracts; or
(b) acts as a "Prime" pass-through entity for federal funds to sub-grantees.
(c) and is subject to review under this Act when included in the Top 100 list established under Section 5.
Outcome-Based Metric means a measurable performance indicator that tracks the successful resolution of a root cause rather than a mere count of activities or services rendered.
Indirect Cost Rate means the percentage of federal funds used for administrative overhead, executive salaries, and facility costs.
SEC. 3. CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS (THE ROOT CAUSE).
Define: The federal government currently funnels billions of dollars through "Phantom NGOs" that have become a that operate with limited standardized oversight relative to federal agencies, often operating with less oversight than federal agencies.
Measure: The current "Reimbursement Model" rewards activity (inventory) rather than efficacy (value), leading to massive "Aging Data" in grant performance.
Analyze: The root cause of this leak is the "Decoupling of Dollars from Results," where funding continues on auto-pilot regardless of whether the NGO is solving the intended problem.
Improve/Control: Implementing a tiered, monthly operational rhythm for the Top NGOs will install the controls necessary to eliminate administrative friction and restore mission-focus.
SEC. 4. PURPOSES.
To establish a standardized audit and performance measurement process for federally funded non-governmental organizations.
To ensure alignment between federal funding and measurable outcomes tied to the resolution of root causes.
To increase transparency in the distribution and use of federal funds, including all sub-grantee allocations.
To improve efficiency by identifying and reducing administrative overhead that is not directly contributing to mission outcomes.
SEC. 5. THE OPERATIONAL RAMP-UP SCHEDULE.
(a) The List: The Top 100 list shall prioritize NGOs based on total federal funding received to ensure initial reviews focus on the highest-cost entities.
(b) The Project Manager: The House Committee on Oversight and Accountability shall assign NGOs to the Committees of Jurisdiction according to the following cadence:
Assignments shall be made based on subject matter jurisdiction, committee expertise, and workload distribution to ensure efficient and balanced review.
1. Phase 1 (Years 1–2): One (1) NGO review per month to establish process stability.
2. Phase 2 (Years 3–4): Two (2) NGO reviews per month to optimize flow.
3. Phase 3 (Year 5+): Incremental ramp-up to a steady state of five (5) NGO reviews per month.
(c) The Performance Audit: Each Committee of Jurisdiction shall conduct a structured performance audit for each assigned NGO and shall establish not fewer than three (3) Outcome-Based Metrics to determine whether Federal funds are effectively addressing the intended root cause of the program’s mission, as opposed to measuring activity or output alone.
SEC. 6. THE BINARY DECISION (THE CONTROL PHASE).
(a) Monthly Floor Consideration: The House shall prioritize monthly floor consideration of NGOs assigned for review under this Act.
(b) The Outcome: Every review must result in a direct vote to either:
1. Sunset: Terminate the contract or grant due to lack of performance or excessive administrative waste.
2. Standardize: Re-authorize funding for a period not to exceed four (4) years, provided the NGO adopts and maintains DMAIC-based performance reporting standards as established under the Congressional Problem-Solving and Root Cause Accountability Act. Such reporting shall continue throughout the reauthorization period and be subject to periodic review by the Committee of Jurisdiction.
SEC. 7. ADMINISTRATIVE EFFICIENCY AND SUB-GRANTEE TRANSPARENCY.
(a) Indirect Cost Evaluation: Each NGO reviewed under this Act shall disclose its Indirect Cost Rate. The Committee of Jurisdiction shall evaluate whether such rate is justified relative to demonstrated performance outcomes and mission effectiveness, and may recommend corrective action where administrative costs materially exceed direct service delivery.
(b) The Shadow Pipe Disclosure: Any NGO acting as a "Prime" must disclose every sub-grantee recipient, the amount received, and the specific performance metric assigned to that sub-grantee.
(c) The Lean Dashboard: All NGO performance data, executive salary ratios, and final audit votes shall be posted publicly on the "American Lean" dashboard.
AVIATION VERSATILITY AND MULTI-ROLE READINESS ACT
A BILL
To establish a mandatory multi-role design requirement for all new manned aircraft platforms procured by the Armed Forces; to ensure operational resilience and logistical efficiency; and for other purposes.
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the “Aviation Versatility and Multi-Role Readiness Act.”
SEC. 2. CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS (THE ROOT CAUSE).
Define: Current procurement practices often prioritize "Specialized Fragility," resulting in manned aircraft designed for a single, narrow mission set.
Measure: Single-mission aircraft create excessive logistical bloat, requiring unique supply chains, maintenance pipelines, and specialized training for every airframe.
Analyze: The root cause of this inefficiency is the "Siloed Requirements" process, which leads to "limited pilots" and "limited platforms" that cannot pivot as the modern battlefield evolves.
Improve/Control: Mandating a minimum five-mission design threshold will install the "Standard Work" necessary to maximize asset utilization and ensure mission success in high-tempo environments.
SEC. 3. PURPOSES.
Versatility: To ensure that every manned aircraft platform is a multi-role tool capable of adapting to diverse operational needs.
Efficiency: To reduce the national debt by consolidating multiple mission requirements into fewer, more capable airframes.
Readiness: To increase the "Value-Add" per flight hour by ensuring pilots are trained and equipped for a broad spectrum of combat and support tasks.
SEC. 4. THE FIVE-MISSION MANDATE.
(a) Design Requirement: No new manned aircraft platform shall be approved for procurement, or move beyond the Preliminary Design Review (PDR), unless the system is designed from inception to achieve full operational proficiency in no fewer than five (5) distinct Core Mission Essential Tasks (METs).
(b) Scope of Tasks: The specific five tasks shall be determined by the respective Service Secretary or the Joint Staff, based on the primary operational environment of the platform.
(c) Certification: The Secretary of Defense must certify to the Congressional Defense Committees that the baseline airframe architecture, power margins, and digital systems can support the five-mission requirement without necessitating secondary, post-production modifications.
SEC. 5. APPLICABILITY.
(a) Manned Platforms: This Act shall apply to all new manned fixed-wing and rotary-wing aircraft programs initiated after the date of enactment.
(b) Exemptions: This Act does not apply to unmanned aerial systems (UAS) or to the modification/upgrading of existing legacy airframes.
(c) The Secretary of Defense shall ensure that any modifications to this requirement preserve the Act’s intent to design multi-role capability from inception and avoid the proliferation of single-mission platforms.
SEC. 6. THE LEAN DASHBOARD AND REPORTING.
(a) Transparency: Each new aircraft program’s five assigned METs shall be listed on the "American Lean" dashboard.
(b) Performance Tracking: Annual readiness reports for these platforms must track proficiency levels across all five mandated missions to ensure "Aging Data" does not result in the loss of multi-role capability.
CONGRESSIONAL PROBLEM-SOLVING AND ROOT CAUSE ACCOUNTABILITY ACT
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the “Congressional Problem-Solving and Root Cause Accountability Act.”
SEC. 2. CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS.
The federal government manages a multi-trillion dollar budget and complex national systems that require high-level problem-solving competency.
Legislative efforts often address superficial symptoms rather than the root causes of systemic inefficiency, leading to wasteful spending and ineffective policy.
Standardized methodologies, such as DMAIC (Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve, Control) and Root Cause Analysis (RCA), are proven industry standards for increasing efficiency and reducing waste.
Professional development in these methodologies will improve the quality of legislation, enhance fiscal responsibility, and restore public trust in the legislative process.
SEC. 3. MANDATORY TRAINING REQUIREMENT.
(a) MEMBERS OF CONGRESS.—Each Member of the House of Representatives and each Senator shall complete a certified four-hour training course in Root Cause Analysis and DMAIC methodologies once per term of office.
(b) CONGRESSIONAL STAFF.—Each Member shall designate up to three (3) professional staff members from their personal or committee office to complete the same training requirement once per term.
(c) NEW MEMBERS.—Training shall be completed within the first 100 days of the first session of a new Congress.
SEC. 4. COURSE CURRICULUM AND STANDARDS.
(a) CONTENT.—The training shall consist of "off-the-shelf" industry-standard curricula focusing on:
Identifying and defining systemic problems.
Data-driven measurement and analysis.
Root Cause Analysis tools (e.g., The 5 Whys, Fishbone Diagram).
Implementing sustainable controls to prevent problem recurrence.
(b) ADMINISTRATION.—The Chief Administrative Officer of the House and the Secretary of the Senate shall coordinate the delivery of these courses, utilizing existing professional development platforms or third-party industry experts.
SEC. 5. COMPLIANCE AND TRANSPARENCY.
(a) PUBLIC RECORD.—The names of Members and staff who have completed the required training shall be posted on the public website of the House of Representatives and the Senate.
(b) CERTIFICATION.—Failure to complete the training within the allotted timeframe shall be noted in the public record until compliance is achieved.
SEC. 6. FISCAL IMPACT AND COST-SAVINGS GOALS.
(a) BUDGET.—The cost of implementing this training shall be absorbed by existing administrative budgets for congressional professional development.
(b) LONG-TERM IMPACT.—It is the intent of Congress that the application of these methodologies to the legislative process will result in a measurable reduction in federal waste and a multi-trillion dollar decrease in the national debt over the next decade.
SEC. 7. EFFECTIVE DATE.
This Act shall take effect at the beginning of the first session of the 121st Congress.
