Top 13 Bipartisan Issues

The US is unusual for how long and costly the permitting process is for projects subject to environmental review. This might sound like a topic only a policy wonk could love. Still, Republican and Democratic congressional offices rated permitting reform as one of the most promising issues because it affects Americans in important ways they might not recognize. Among other things, permitting reform aims to reduce gas and electric costs, accelerate infrastructure including broadband, and make US industries nimbler as they compete with global adversaries. While permitting in other developed countries with high environmental standards typically takes about 2 years, in the US, it often takes 5 years and can take 10 years or more. One analysis found that a 6-year delay in permitting doubles the cost of a project. Extended court battles are often part of long US delays.   

Bipartisan measures aim to streamline the process without lowering environmental standards. Whether the project is approved or rejected because of its environmental impacts, these proposals are designed to ensure the decision is made more quickly.   

Proposals include:  

• Limit Excessive Judicial Review—Including reducing from 6 years to 1 or 2 years the timeframe for filing a lawsuit challenging a permitting decision and limiting standing to file a lawsuit to those directly impacted by the project or those who participated in the comment period
• Limit Scope of Proposals Requiring Full Review—Require full environmental reviews only for projects that normally have significant environmental effects
• Increased Use of Cost-Benefit Analysis—For example, establish rules preventing requirements to conduct expensive and lengthy reviews of alternatives with little to no environmental benefit

China’s growing global power presents significant challenges for US national and economic security. The use of economic coercion to influence smaller countries is of particular concern as China leverages trade dependencies, investments, and access to its vast market to extract political concessions from other nations. This strategy’s success has been evident in cases such as Australia, which faced trade restrictions after calling for an independent investigation into COVID-19’s origins, and Lithuania, which suffered economic retaliation from China after Lithuania strengthened ties with Taiwan.   

China’s economic pressure undermines global norms of free trade and sovereignty, creating a system where smaller nations feel compelled to align themselves with Beijing’s interests. This dynamic weakens US alliances and influence, particularly in the Indo-Pacific, Africa, and Latin America, where Chinese investments in infrastructure and technology have expanded its geopolitical reach. For example, the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) has also led to substantial debt dependency among participating nations.  

For American consumers, allowing coercive Chinese tactics to go unchecked can mean higher prices on key goods and disruptions to critical supply chains. Americans suffer when China punishes the US or other nations by restricting exports of essential goods and imposing tariffs or trade embargoes that affect the prices of electronics, machinery, food, and other household necessities. Additionally, China’s state-backed industries and subsidies distort global markets, which can put American businesses at a disadvantage.  

Policymakers on both the left and right share concerns about China’s use of economic coercion as a tactic for geopolitical gain.  

Proposals include:

• Re-shoring—Provide tax incentives to manufacturers who move elements of key production chains out of China and countries where China exercises great influence to the United States or trusted partners 
• Decrease Chinese Military Advantages—Limit US investment in military-related technologies in China and limit exports of leading-edge US technology to China
• Regulate Higher Education Institutions—Prohibit federal funding to those affiliated with “Chinese entities of concern”

Prescription drug prices are hitting Americans hard. The average American spends over $1,150 a year on medication—more than anywhere else in the world.

One area of growing bipartisan agreement in Congress is the need for better regulation of Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBMs). These middlemen play a significant role in negotiating prices between drug manufacturers, insurers, and pharmacies. But many lawmakers believe that PBM practices like marking up the costs of drugs they buy from pharmacies or keeping pharmacy rebates for themselves, contribute to higher drug prices. Research finds that PBMs lead to privately insured individuals paying $6 more per prescription, Medicare recipients paying $13 more, and uninsured individuals paying $39 more for each prescription. Additionally, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that government spending on prescription drugs in programs like Medicare and Medicaid would decrease by $1 billion over ten years by eliminating some price markups by PBMs.  

Another bipartisan approach is increasing access to generics. These medicines work just like name-brand drugs and are allowed to compete on the open market at lower prices after an exclusive patent period has ended. Pharmaceutical companies reduce generic competition in various ways like filing for patents for nearly every aspect of a drug or for medically inconsequential modifications to an old drug.   

Proposals include: 

• Reform PBMs—Increase drug price and rebate transparency, ban spread pricing (where PBMs charge insurers more than they pay pharmacies), and ensure that rebates are passed directly to consumers 
• Expand Access to Generics—Limit anti-competitive patent practices by drug companies and streamline FDA approval for generic drugs

Critical minerals like lithium, cobalt, nickel, and graphite are essential in modern technology and industries. The US has large deposits of many critical minerals but lacks a strong mining sector to extract and process them, in part because getting permits is so difficult here.  

Lawmakers in both parties agree that our critical mineral dependence on other countries threatens the economy, national security, and clean energy ambitions. We import 100% of 12 critical minerals and rely on foreign sources for the majority of our supply for 31 of the 50 critical minerals. China’s dominance is especially alarming. As of 2023, China is the largest producer of 30 out of 50 critical minerals. China also controls approximately 90% of the processing capacity for rare earth elements.   

Proposals include:  

• Increase Responsible US Mining—Speed up federal permitting of mines and processing facilities while maintaining strong environmental standards
• Increase Recycling—Increase supply by reusing minerals already in technologies like batteries
• Secure Supply Chains—Forge partnerships with allies to collaborate on mining and processing 

US shipbuilding has declined significantly, weakening national security, the economy, and supply chains. Once a global leader, the US built only 5 ocean-faring ships in 2022, far fewer than China and South Korea who built 1,794 and 734 ships respectively. High costs, outdated shipyards, a shrinking workforce, and heavy reliance on military contracts all diminish our ability to compete with these other nations.  

Building ships in the US costs twice as much as in other countries, largely due to higher wages, strict regulations, and a lack of commercial shipyards. Most US shipyards focus on Navy contracts, leaving little room for commercial production. At the same time, aging infrastructure and outdated technology slow production and drive up costs. A shortage of skilled workers further strains the industry.  

Beyond shipbuilding, too few shipyards and repair facilities create long delays in maintaining the US Navy’s fleet, raising concerns about military readiness. Without significant investment and reform, the industry’s challenges will continue to weaken US competitiveness and national security.  

Proposals include: 

• Invest in Shipyard Modernization—Provide tax credits and grants to upgrade shipbuilding infrastructure, improving efficiency and reducing costs
• Increase Workforce Development Programs—Expand apprenticeships and technical training to address the industry’s skilled labor shortage
• Adopt Modern Technology—Encourage automation, 3D printing, and modular construction to lower production costs and accelerate shipbuilding timelines   
• Create Policy Incentives for Commercial Shipbuilding—Develop subsidy and financing programs to reduce reliance on military contracts and increase competitiveness in the commercial sector

Many experts have concluded that the US, like many countries, is currently experiencing a mental health crisis. In a given year, 20% of Americans will experience mental illness. The average time between the beginning of symptoms and the start of treatment is 11 years. Roughly 8% of Americans will struggle simultaneously with a mental health illness and substance abuse. 

The lack of resources and mental health professionals can make it especially hard to begin treatment. Over 160 million Americans live in a Mental Health Professional Shortage Area. A range of bipartisan legislation is under consideration to expand and improve mental health resources, including addressing substance abuse. There is particular interest in expanding and improving mental health care for youth and for people who live in rural areas or have low incomes.  

Proposals include: 

• Support Youth Mental Health Interventions—Allow existing federal grants to be used for treating youth with mental health challenges early enough to prevent serious mental illness, implement threat assessment programs in K-12 schools and provide identified students with support that can prevent violence 
• Adopt Substance Abuse Proposals—Dedicate more resources to enforce laws prohibiting dealers from using social media to sell illicit drugs, particularly to minors, as well as increasing investments in substance abuse treatment and prevention

Accessing affordable and reliable childcare is a significant challenge for millions of American families. Many parents sit on waitlists for months, forced to cut hours or leave jobs due to a lack of available childcare options. The numbers highlight the severity of this issue: as of 2023, 69% of kids under 6 had all parents in the workforce, yet half the country lives in areas where licensed care is scarce. In places where safe, high-quality childcare is available, it can often be unaffordable. Department of Labor data indicate that the annual median cost of childcare for a single child ranges from $5,357 to $17,171, depending on age and county size. In many states, care for an infant or toddler can cost more than in-state college tuition. 

The affordable childcare shortage is not just impacting families—it’s holding back the economy. An estimated 1.2 – 1.5 million workers, mostly mothers, have scaled back or left jobs due to childcare struggles, costing the US billions in lost productivity. Meanwhile, average pay for childcare professionals is $14.60 an hour. As low wages cause childcare workers to leave the field, the staffing shortage will likely worsen. 

With so many Americans feeling the pressure of rising childcare costs, policymakers on both sides of the political spectrum agree that action is needed.

Proposals include: 

• Increase beneficial tax treatment—Raise the maximum childcare contributions eligible for beneficial tax treatment from federal programs like the Dependent Care Assistance Plan and allow eligible families to benefit from multiple tax credits and plans at once
• More Childcare Options—Increase childcare options by easing regulations on home-based childcare providers and subsidizing new and existing childcare providers, especially for parents who work non-traditional hours and those who live in areas where licensed care is scarce
• Training More Childcare Professionals—Create apprenticeship programs for early childhood educators and allow existing federal grants to colleges to be used for developing programs on early childhood education

The US is in a housing affordability and availability crisis. The 2008 housing market collapse and the COVID-19 pandemic contributed to a significant decline in both single and multi-unit home construction from which we have never fully recovered. Current estimates indicate that there are approximately 3-4 million fewer homes than the population requires. During a period with relatively high inflation, the prices of homes have increased far beyond other costs. Adjusted for inflation, median home prices have increased by 123% since 2010. Beyond climbing house and rental prices, other home costs like property insurance and utility bills have also been on the rise. The latest US Census Bureau data indicate that nearly half of US households are considered “cost-burdened,” meaning that they spend over 30% of their income on housing-related costs.  

The problems with US housing extend beyond a shortage of available units. Much of the current housing stock is aging and needs substantial renovation, but the high costs can deter owners from making necessary improvements. Restoring existing units is 25% to 45% cheaper than building new homes, suggesting that this is a cost-effective way to preserve the housing supply. 

There is growing interest in Congress to address the housing affordability crisis.   

Proposals include: 

• Increase Housing Supply—Incentivize new construction by expanding and updating tax credits for builders
• Support Rural Housing—Preserve homes in rural areas through existing federal grants and allow financial support for low-income tenants in rural multifamily housing to continue even after property owners have paid off their mortgage
• Extend Affordable Homeownership—Encourage private sector investments in affordable housing through Opportunity Zones and housing tax credits for first-time homebuyers

As the cost of raising and supporting children continues to rise in the US, there is a growing consensus across parties to find ways to reduce the financial impact on parents through changes to the Child Tax Credit (CTC). The CTC is a benefit that reduces the tax burden on families depending on the number of children they have. The CTC was expanded in 2017 and temporarily again in 2021 in response to the pandemic with significant results: in 2021, child poverty in the US decreased by nearly 50%, with over 2 million children lifted from poverty. By 2026, the last of the recent changes will expire. 

While other programs exist to support low-income families with children, Republicans and Democrats agree that the CTC is an especially efficient way to support parents and guardians. However, partisan differences exist on how to fund or expand the benefits of the CTC. Currently, Democrats tend to favor expanding the Child Tax Credit’s refundability and monthly benefits as additional direct support to families. Republicans want to expand CTC benefits as well, and look to fund those expansions by shrinking the number of federal programs assisting low-income families and children, citing inefficiencies in running multiple programs for low-income families.  

Proposals include:  

• Expanding the Yearly Benefit Per Child—The current credit provides $2,000 for each dependent child. Some proposals have suggested raising this amount. However, for the 2025 tax year, the credit is set to fall to $1,000 per child
• Remove the Income Cap—Families earning above a certain income threshold are currently ineligible for full CTC benefits. Some proposals would raise these income caps to benefit more families
• Expanding Refundability—Originally, low-income families couldn’t receive any benefit beyond a reduction in the taxes they owed. One of the recent expansions gives these families actual payments instead of just eliminating the taxes they owe. However, the amount of these payments beyond a family’s tax liability has already decreased from its recent high. Some proposals would change this, restoring the higher recent cash payment levels
• Making Refunds Available Monthly—Low-income families who can receive the CTC as a refund currently only do so when they file their taxes. Some proposals would make the expanded refund a monthly payment to families
• Offset costs through adjusting other programs—A key challenge in expanding the CTC lies in finding the ways to pay for it, including finding agreement on reductions to other programs

America’s food labeling laws have remained untouched for the last decade, leaving consumers with outdated and often misleading information about the food products they purchase. There is growing bipartisan interest in modernizing food labels to promote transparency and public health in addition to addressing food waste and consumer confusion. 

Proposals include:

• Standardized Front-of-Package Labels—Ensure clear, consistent labeling, including disclosure of sodium, fat, and sugar levels and previously hidden ingredients
• Uniform Use by Dates—Establish guidelines for “best if used by” and “use by” labels to cut down on food waste and boost economic efficiency

There is wide consensus that more illegal immigration exists than is appropriate, safe, or fair for anyone. On the other hand, there is a shared concern that our economy depends on undocumented workers, who represent 4.8% of the US workforce at a time when the country already faces worker shortages. Estimates conclude that there are approximately 11 million undocumented individuals in the US.

While there is general bipartisan agreement on each of the proposals below, this issue sits lower in congressional ratings of promising bipartisan issues because disagreements remain over important details. For example, some support only fairly limited spending on border security and won’t agree to an immigration package if it doesn’t include fair treatment for those who entered the country illegally as children or who have been here paying taxes and obeying the law for decades. Others insist on more border security spending with more restrictive treatment of those who entered the country illegally as children or who have been here for decades paying taxes and obeying the law.

Those challenges notwithstanding, immigration reform still made the list of promising issues because lawmakers recognize how meaningful this issue is and that it remains fluid. While the congressional offices we met with believe it would be very difficult to reach the level of consensus necessary to pass immigration reform at the moment, they can imagine that changing during the year. 

Proposals include: 

• Add Limits on Overall Immigration Levels—Allow the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to activate Border Emergency Authority if border encounters reach a daily average of 4,000 over a period of 7 days and mandate action if they reach over 5,000 over a period of 7 days or 8,500 over a single day
• Reform the Visa System—Make it more efficient and allow more workers to enter the country who are needed for particular high-skilled roles and to fill positions Americans do not want. H-1B reform addresses dependents who no longer qualify after turning 21 (known as aging out of status) and increases employment-based visa flexibility while ensuring fair treatment of those workers. H-2B reform tackles labor shortages by making additional visas available when workforce needs cannot be met with domestic workers
• Increase Border Security—Build a more extensive and effective fence and other barriers on the southern border and provide more enforcement resources to secure the border, particularly in areas where the flow of illegal immigration is highest
• Address Immigrants’ Status—Resolve legal status of undocumented immigrants who have been here paying taxes and obeying the law for decades or those who came into the country as minors with undocumented parents. Additionally, address those who are here legally on a temporary basis because current conditions make it unsafe for them to return to their home country (e.g. Afghanistan and Ukraine) 
• Invest in Capacity to Process Asylum Claims—Hire more judges and staff as well as build more facilities to more quickly process the claims of those who show up at the border fleeing dire circumstances in their own country to help address the current backlog of cases
• Streamline System Efficiency—Simplify the system to make it more efficient and navigable for immigrants and government agencies  

Fires, hurricanes, tornados, floods, blizzards and other disasters are becoming more intense and frequent. In 2024, the US experienced 27 separate billion-dollar climate and weather disasters for a total cost of $182.7 billion. Since 2016, the 5-year average cost of all disasters has more than doubled. Consequently, bipartisan interest in more effective government action to mitigate the damage and aid impacted Americans is growing.  

Current approaches to disaster mitigation and relief are extremely complicated and pose real barriers to recovery. Just at the federal level, dozens of agencies, programs, and departments must coordinate a response through 5 mission areas and 32 core capabilities. The many different relief programs for those affected, often requiring unique applications for aid, can further burden Americans working to rebuild their lives after a disaster. While investments to prepare and shield communities from the worst impacts of disasters are commonly made by states, the federal government pays for most recovery and rebuilding efforts, which allows states to avoid the costs of poor preparation. 

Proposals include:

• Encourage Mitigation—Encourage better mitigation of disaster damage by reimbursing a larger share of disaster costs in states who invest in disaster resiliency and prevention
• Reform FEMA—Standardize disaster relief applications for citizens, grant the agency greater authority to quickly deliver resources to disaster victims, and return FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) to its status as an independent agency
• Improve Federal Reinsurance—Prevent further property insurance losses in disaster-prone areas by absorbing portions of the catastrophic risk that private insurance companies currently hold

*Note: We placed this issue 12th because it came up fairly late in our process, so we haven’t received enough ratings yet to have a stable average.

In recent months, the US has significantly changed the tariffs it imposes on foreign goods multiple times in quick succession. The resulting historic levels of uncertainty have reverberated immediately in the stock and bond markets. In the coming months, the uncertainty threatens to drive up inflation and slow economic growth.

The Constitution vests the taxing authority in Congress based on the principle that a power as great as the authority to tax, including taxes on imports, should be exercised by the branch of government closest to the people. Article I, Section 8 grants Congress the power “to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations” and to “lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises.” In the last century, however, Congress has increasingly delegated its authority to the president.

There is growing bipartisan interest in Congress reasserting some of its constitutional authority to ensure that the American people, acting through their representatives in Congress, have a voice in US tariff policy. Proposals also aim to ensure that American tariffs are predictable and based on sound evidence and rationale.

We do not have a congressional rating of this issue because much of the growth in bipartisan interest occurred well after we began meeting with congressional offices in early January. Many of the offices have suggested this issue since we first met with them. Several of the members of the congressional bipartisan groups with whom we’re working have co-sponsored recently introduced tariff legislation and have requested that we ask whether you think this is an issue we should work on together.

Proposals include: