Laken Riley Act

Laken Riley Act

Sponsored by Katie Britt

Under current immigration law, the Department of Homeland Security has discretion in deciding whether to detain noncitizens pending removal proceedings. While DHS must detain certain categories of noncitizens—such as those convicted of specific crimes or deemed security threats—many others can be released on bond or parole. States have limited ability to challenge federal detention or release decisions. This discretionary system means that noncitizens charged with crimes like theft or burglary may be released into communities while their cases proceed, creating situations where states believe federal immigration enforcement is inadequate. The Laken Riley Act amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to require the Secretary of Homeland Security to take custody of and detain noncitizens who are charged with, arrested for, or convicted of theft, burglary, larceny, shoplifting, or assault of a law enforcement officer—or any crime resulting in death or serious bodily injury. DHS must issue a detainer for such individuals and take custody if they are not otherwise detained by federal, state, or local officials. The bill defines these crimes according to the jurisdiction where the acts occurred. Additionally, the bill grants state attorneys general standing to sue the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Attorney General, and the Secretary of State in federal court if they allege that detention or release decisions harm their state or residents, with courts required to expedite such cases. Implementation begins immediately upon enactment. DHS must identify noncitizens meeting the new detention criteria and issue detainers accordingly. States can file lawsuits in federal district court challenging federal detention or release decisions, with courts prioritizing these cases on their dockets. The bill lowers the threshold for proving state harm to include financial harm exceeding $100. This expands state authority over immigration enforcement and creates new litigation pathways, potentially increasing federal court caseloads and requiring DHS to detain more individuals, which will affect detention facility capacity and resources.

Finish the Arkansas Valley Conduit Act

Sponsored by Lauren Boebert

The Arkansas Valley Conduit is a water infrastructure project in Colorado authorized under the Reclamation Act of 1939 and subsequent legislation. Currently, the project's repayment terms allow for payment of 35 percent of construction costs through a combination of user payments and revenue from excess capacity contracts on the Fryingpan-Arkansas project. However, the existing repayment structure does not clearly specify how financial hardship should be assessed or how the repayment period should be structured, creating uncertainty for water districts and communities seeking to finance the conduit's completion. This bill amends Public Law 87-590 to establish clearer repayment terms for the Arkansas Valley Conduit. The Department of the Interior, through the Bureau of Reclamation, is directed to structure the repayment contract to require payment of 35 percent of construction costs, with the remaining balance repayable over up to 75 years at a reduced interest rate—50 percent of the Treasury rate—based on a demonstration of financial hardship by the contracting parties. The bill also requires that contracting parties assume full responsibility for the care, operation, maintenance, and replacement of the conduit once constructed. Implementation begins upon enactment, with the Bureau of Reclamation establishing financial hardship criteria and finalizing repayment contracts with water districts and municipalities. Funding for the initial 35 percent of costs must come from non-federal sources or entities other than the Secretary of the Interior. The reduced interest rate and extended repayment period lower annual debt service obligations for participating water districts, making the project more financially feasible for rural and underserved communities. The shift of operations and maintenance responsibility to local contracting parties reduces long-term federal obligations while ensuring sustainable local management of the infrastructure.

A concurrent resolution to provide for the counting on January 6, 2025, of the electoral votes for President and Vice President of the United States.

Sponsored by John Thune

The Constitution requires Congress to meet in joint session to count electoral votes cast by states in presidential elections. Federal law, primarily the Electoral Count Act of 1887 and subsequent amendments, establishes the procedures for this counting process, including how objections to electoral votes are handled and the role of the President of the Senate in presiding. This concurrent resolution serves as the formal mechanism by which Congress schedules and authorizes the joint session needed to fulfill this constitutional duty. This concurrent resolution directs both the Senate and House of Representatives to convene in joint session in the Hall of the House of Representatives on January 6, 2025, at 1 p.m. The President of the Senate shall preside over the proceedings. The resolution requires the President of the Senate to appoint two tellers from the Senate and the Speaker to appoint two tellers from the House to receive and read aloud all electoral certificates as they are opened. The tellers must present and act upon these certificates in alphabetical order by state, then compile a list of votes according to procedures established by existing law. Once the tellers complete their count, they deliver the results to the President of the Senate, who announces the outcome. This announcement constitutes the official declaration of which candidates, if any, have been elected President and Vice President. The vote tally and list of electoral votes are then entered into the official journals of both chambers. The entire process follows the rules and procedures already codified in federal election law, with this resolution simply establishing the date, time, and location for Congress to execute its constitutional obligation to count and certify the electoral votes.

Amtrak Executive Bonus Disclosure Act

Sponsored by David Rouzer

Amtrak, the federally chartered passenger railroad, currently submits annual financial and operational reports to Congress as required by title 49 of the United States Code. These reports detail the railroad's finances, performance metrics, and organizational structure. However, existing law does not require Amtrak to publicly disclose detailed compensation information for its executive leadership, including base salaries and bonus payments. This lack of transparency means that taxpayers who fund Amtrak's operations have limited visibility into how executive compensation is structured or what performance criteria trigger bonus awards. This bill amends section 24315(a) of title 49 to require Amtrak to disclose executive compensation in two ways. First, the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) must include annual base pay and bonus compensation information for members of its executive leadership team—defined as the chief executive officer, president, and officers—in its annual reports submitted to Congress. Second, Amtrak must make this same compensation information publicly available on its website. The bill also requires Amtrak to disclose the specific criteria and metrics used to determine any bonus compensation awarded to these executives. Amtrak must incorporate these disclosure requirements into its existing annual reporting process, with no separate funding authorization specified in the legislation. The changes take effect upon enactment and apply to all future annual reports. By posting executive compensation details online alongside its congressional filings, Amtrak will provide real-time public access to information previously available only through congressional channels. This increased transparency may influence how Amtrak structures executive incentive programs and could prompt congressional or public scrutiny of compensation practices at the federally supported railroad.

Rescinding the subpoenas issued by the January 6th Select Committee on September 23, 2021, October 6, 2021, and February 9, 2022, and withdrawing the recommendations finding Stephen K. Bannon, Mark Randall Meadows, Daniel Scavino, Jr., and Peter K. Navarro in contempt of Congress.

Sponsored by Eric Burlison

In June 2021, the House of Representatives established the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol to examine the events of January 6, 2021. The committee issued subpoenas to four individuals—Stephen K. Bannon, Mark Randall Meadows, Daniel Scavino Jr., and Peter K. Navarro—on three separate dates between September 2021 and February 2022. The committee also recommended that the House find these four individuals in contempt of Congress for refusing to comply with those subpoenas. Two of them, Bannon and Navarro, were subsequently prosecuted and imprisoned for contempt of Congress. This resolution directs the House of Representatives to rescind the three subpoenas issued to Bannon, Meadows, Scavino, and Navarro and to withdraw the three separate contempt recommendations that the House had adopted against them. The resolution further directs the Speaker of the House to notify the Department of Justice that the subpoenas are rescinded and shall be considered null and void under sections 192 and 194 of title 2, United States Code. The resolution expresses the sense of the House that the Select Committee was illegitimate and that its conclusions were predetermined due to its partisan composition. The practical effect of this resolution, if adopted, would be to nullify the legal basis for any ongoing enforcement actions related to these subpoenas. The Department of Justice would be formally notified that the subpoenas no longer have force. For individuals already convicted of contempt based on these subpoenas, the resolution does not directly overturn those convictions but removes the underlying legal authority that justified them. The resolution operates retroactively, treating the subpoenas as if they had never been validly issued.

Sponsored by Jodey Arrington

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), administered by the Department of Agriculture, currently provides food assistance to low-income households based on income thresholds and asset limits. Work requirements for able-bodied adults without dependents exist but contain exemptions and time limits. The program's benefit levels are calculated using the Thrifty Food Plan, a USDA model of minimum nutritional adequacy. Current law allows certain utility costs to be deducted from income when determining eligibility, and states can request waivers from federal work requirements under specific conditions. The program also permits internet and phone expenses as allowable costs in some circumstances. H.R. 1 directs the Department of Agriculture to re-evaluate the Thrifty Food Plan methodology and adjust SNAP benefit calculations accordingly. The bill modifies work requirements for able-bodied adults by restricting exemptions and reducing time-limit waivers that states may request. It eliminates the standard utility allowance deduction in most cases, requiring households to document actual energy assistance receipt to claim deductions. The bill prohibits SNAP funds from covering internet and phone expenses. Additionally, it increases the matching funds states must contribute to administer SNAP and raises the share of administrative costs states must bear, shifting more financial responsibility to state budgets. These changes take effect at varying dates, with some provisions applying to the next fiscal year and others phased in over time. The bill provides no new federal funding to offset state cost-sharing increases, meaning states must redirect existing resources or reduce other programs. The re-evaluation of the Thrifty Food Plan could lower benefit amounts if the new methodology determines lower nutritional costs. Stricter work requirements and reduced utility deductions will narrow eligibility or reduce benefits for some households. States with high energy costs or significant populations of working poor may face particular budget pressures from increased matching requirements.