Government Operations and Politics Desk
Government Operations and Politics Bills
34 bills in the Government Operations and Politics desk, ordered for current relevance and readability.
Government Operations and PoliticsHR-142-119Latest action: Jan 3, 20251 readersIn Committee
Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2025
Sponsored by Kat Cammack
Under current law, federal agencies issue regulations through a process governed by the Administrative Procedure Act and the Congressional Review Act. Agencies must publish proposed rules, accept public comment, and submit reports to Congress before rules take effect. However, Congress has no formal mechanism to block most regulations. Agencies classify rules as either "major" (those with significant economic impact, typically over $100 million annually) or "nonmajor." Currently, Congress can disapprove nonmajor rules through a joint resolution, but major rules take effect automatically unless Congress acts to overturn them after the fact—a difficult procedural hurdle that rarely succeeds. This bill amends chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, to reverse that burden. The bill requires that major rules have no force or effect unless Congress enacts a joint resolution of approval within 70 session or legislative days after the rule is submitted. Federal agencies must submit detailed reports to Congress and the Comptroller General before any rule takes effect, including cost-benefit analyses, job impact assessments, and compliance documentation. The Comptroller General must review each major rule within 15 days and report to relevant committees. The bill establishes a streamlined congressional process: the majority leader must introduce an approval resolution within three days, committees have 15 days to report, and floor votes must occur within defined timeframes. The President may allow a major rule to take effect for 90 days in emergencies involving imminent threats to health, safety, national security, or criminal law enforcement, but this does not waive the approval requirement. Implementation begins immediately upon enactment. Agencies must comply with the new submission and documentation requirements for all major rules issued after the law takes effect. The 70-day approval window creates a hard deadline: if Congress does not vote to approve a major rule within that period, the rule automatically fails and cannot be reconsidered in the same Congress. Nonmajor rules continue under the existing disapproval process, taking effect unless Congress votes to reject them. Rules submitted near the end of a congressional session carry over to the next session, resetting the approval clock. No new funding is appropriated; the Comptroller General absorbs review costs from existing resources. This fundamentally shifts regulatory authority: agencies can no longer implement major rules unilaterally, and Congress must affirmatively vote to allow significant regulations to proceed.
Government Operations and Politics
Latest updateJan 3, 2025
Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committees on Rules, and the Budget, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Government Operations and Politics
Government Operations and PoliticsHRES-8-119Latest action: Jan 3, 20250 readersIn Committee
Reaffirming the House of Representatives's commitment to ensuring secure elections throughout the United States by recognizing that the presentation of valid photograph identification is a fundamental component of secure elections.
Sponsored by Andy Biggs
Current federal law does not mandate voter identification at the polls. While some states require photo ID to vote in person, others allow voters to cast ballots without presenting identification, instead using alternative verification methods like signing affidavits or providing partial Social Security numbers. Mail-in and absentee voting systems vary widely by state, with some requiring signature matching or notarization and others using minimal verification. This patchwork of state rules has created ongoing debate about election security, with supporters of ID requirements arguing that photo identification is a standard security measure for many government and private transactions. This resolution directs the House of Representatives to formally reaffirm its commitment to secure elections and to recognize that valid photo identification represents a fundamental component of election security. The resolution does not create new law, impose requirements on states, or establish federal voting rules. Instead, it expresses the chamber's institutional position on the role of photo ID in voting, framing identification verification as consistent with security practices citizens already encounter when accessing government benefits, opening bank accounts, boarding airplanes, or purchasing firearms. As a resolution rather than legislation, this measure carries no binding legal force and does not trigger implementation timelines or require funding. It serves as a statement of House sentiment that may inform future legislative efforts or policy discussions but does not directly alter voting procedures, state election administration, or federal election law. The resolution's practical effect is limited to establishing a formal congressional position that could be cited in debates over voting access, election administration reform, or federal election standards.
Government Operations and Politics
Latest updateJan 3, 2025
Submitted in House
Government Operations and Politics
Government Operations and PoliticsHR-107-119Latest action: Jan 3, 20250 readersIn Committee
Return to Work Act
Sponsored by Andy Biggs
Federal agencies have adopted various telework policies since 2019, with many expanding remote work options during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. Some agencies now require employees to work in offices multiple days per week, while others permit more flexible arrangements. These policies vary significantly across departments and have been shaped by agency leadership decisions, union negotiations, and employment agreements reached in recent years. The current landscape reflects a shift from pre-pandemic norms, with many federal workers accustomed to hybrid or fully remote arrangements. The Return to Work Act requires the head of each Executive agency to reinstate the telework policies that were in place on December 31, 2019, within 60 days of enactment. Once reinstated, these 2019-era policies supersede any conflicting telework provisions in collective bargaining agreements, employment contracts, or other teleworking arrangements adopted since that date. The bill defines Executive agencies according to federal law and applies the reinstatement requirement government-wide, affecting all departments and independent agencies. Implementation begins immediately upon enactment, with agencies having two months to revert to their December 2019 telework frameworks. This change would effectively roll back more permissive remote work arrangements adopted during the pandemic, potentially requiring federal employees currently working remotely to return to offices according to pre-2020 schedules. The shift carries no dedicated federal funding but may require agencies to adjust workspace planning, facilities management, and employee scheduling. Existing collective bargaining agreements would be modified to the extent they conflict with the reinstated policies, potentially triggering disputes with federal employee unions.
Government Operations and Politics
Latest updateJan 3, 2025
Referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
Government Operations and Politics
Government Operations and PoliticsHR-121-119Latest action: Jan 3, 20250 readersIn Committee
No Vaccine Passports Act
Sponsored by Andy Biggs
During the COVID-19 pandemic, federal agencies developed systems to document and verify vaccination status, including digital records and standardized credentials that individuals could present to demonstrate their immunization history. Some agencies also implemented vaccination requirements for access to federal facilities, services, and congressional grounds. These practices emerged as public health measures but became subjects of ongoing political debate regarding government authority, individual privacy, and the appropriate scope of federal health documentation. The No Vaccine Passports Act prohibits federal agencies from issuing, publishing, or sharing vaccine passports, vaccine passes, or standardized documentation certifying COVID-19 vaccination status. The bill defines "agency" according to the Administrative Procedure Act to include all executive branch departments and independent agencies. Additionally, the legislation prohibits federal agencies from requiring proof of COVID-19 vaccination as a condition for accessing federal property, federal services, or congressional grounds and services. The bill does not address private sector vaccine documentation or requirements imposed by non-federal entities. The prohibition takes effect upon enactment and applies to all federal agencies going forward. The bill contains no specific funding mechanism, as it primarily restricts agency actions rather than authorizing new expenditures. Existing vaccination records held by agencies would remain subject to applicable privacy laws and records retention requirements. The legislation does not affect state or local vaccine documentation systems, private employer vaccination policies, or healthcare provider records. Federal agencies would need to discontinue any active vaccine passport programs and cease requiring vaccination proof for facility access, though other health and safety protocols would remain available to agencies under existing authority.
Government Operations and Politics
Latest updateJan 3, 2025
Referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and in addition to the Committee on House Administration, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Government Operations and Politics
Government Operations and PoliticsHR-69-119Latest action: Jan 3, 20250 readersIn Committee
Freedom to Petition the Government Act
Sponsored by Andy Biggs
The District of Columbia requires nonprofit organizations that conduct business within the district to register with local authorities. Current law defines "doing business" broadly to include various activities, and nonprofits that meet this threshold must comply with D.C. registration requirements. This registration obligation applies regardless of whether a nonprofit's primary operations occur elsewhere, creating a potential barrier for national advocacy organizations that occasionally hold meetings in the district. This bill amends the District of Columbia Official Code to exempt nonprofit organizations from D.C. business registration requirements when their only activity in the district is meeting with members of Congress or other federal officials at locations owned or leased by the federal government. The amendment adds a new category to the existing list of activities that do not constitute "doing business" in D.C. under section 29-105.05(a). The change applies specifically to organizations described in section 501(c) of the Internal Revenue Code and exempt from federal taxation under section 501(a)—the standard definition of tax-exempt nonprofits. The bill takes effect upon enactment and requires no new federal funding or agency action. The District of Columbia will apply the exemption prospectively when nonprofits seek to determine their registration obligations. Advocacy groups, think tanks, and other tax-exempt organizations that currently register with D.C. solely because they hold meetings with federal officials in federal buildings will no longer need to do so. The change does not affect nonprofits that conduct other business activities in the district beyond federal meetings, nor does it alter D.C.'s authority to regulate nonprofits engaged in broader commercial or operational activities within district boundaries.
Government Operations and Politics
Latest updateJan 3, 2025
Referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
Government Operations and Politics
Government Operations and PoliticsHR-201-119Latest action: Jan 3, 20250 readersIn Committee
Federal Employee Performance and Accountability Act of 2025
Sponsored by Claudia Tenney
Federal employees currently receive pay adjustments through established Title 5 mechanisms, including annual cost-of-living adjustments, step increases within their grade, and performance bonuses administered under existing civil service rules. These adjustments are uniform across most employees at the same grade level and do not directly tie individual compensation to measurable performance outcomes. The current system emphasizes seniority and position classification rather than productivity metrics or accountability tied to specific job functions. This bill directs the Office of Management and Budget to establish a 5-year pilot program that ties pay directly to individual performance for eligible federal employees at grades GS-11 through GS-15 and senior-level positions in roles with measurable outputs—such as project managers, policy analysts, IT specialists, and claims processors. Participating agencies must enroll between 1 and 10 percent of eligible employees. The Director of OMB shall establish standardized performance metrics focused on productivity, quality, and timeliness. Employees exceeding expectations receive salary increases up to 10 percent; those meeting expectations receive no adjustment; those falling short face a 10 percent pay reduction and mandatory training. Agencies may also award bonuses and non-monetary benefits like telework or flexible scheduling to top performers. The pilot runs for five years beginning 180 days after enactment, with salary adjustments taking effect in year two. Participating employees become ineligible for standard Title 5 pay increases, step advances, and performance bonuses during their participation. Agencies must submit annual reports on productivity, cost savings, and employee satisfaction to OMB, which publishes findings to Congress. The program uses existing agency budgets with no new appropriations. Within one year of program termination, the Comptroller General and OMB must assess overall impact on productivity, budgets, and employee engagement and report to Congress.
Government Operations and Politics
Latest updateJan 3, 2025
Referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
Government Operations and Politics
Government Operations and PoliticsHR-70-119Latest action: Jan 3, 20250 readersIn Committee
No SmartPay for Anti-2A Companies Act
Sponsored by Andy Biggs
The General Services Administration (GSA) currently administers the SmartPay Program, which provides federal agencies with commercial payment card systems for procurement and travel expenses. These contracts allow federal employees to make authorized purchases using government-sponsored cards processed through private payment networks. The program has operated for decades as a standard mechanism for federal spending, with the GSA selecting payment processors based on cost, efficiency, and service quality. No existing federal law restricts contract awards based on the payment processor's policies toward particular merchant categories or industries.
Government Operations and Politics
Latest updateJan 3, 2025
Referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
Government Operations and Politics
Government Operations and PoliticsHR-51-119Latest action: Jan 3, 20250 readersIn Committee
Washington, D.C. Admission Act
Sponsored by Eleanor Norton
Washington, D.C. currently operates as a federal district under the exclusive legislative authority of Congress, governed by a locally elected mayor and city council but lacking voting representation in Congress and full sovereignty over its territory. The district's residents cannot vote for President or Vice President in federal elections, and Congress retains power to overturn local laws. D.C. has no senators and only a non-voting delegate in the House. This arrangement stems from the Constitution's designation of a federal seat of government, which has historically been interpreted to exclude the district from statehood. The Washington, D.C. Admission Act requires the President to issue a proclamation admitting the District as the State of Washington, Douglass Commonwealth upon certification that elections for two senators and one representative have been held. The bill establishes that the new state shall consist of all current D.C. territory except for a federally retained "Capital" area—defined through a metes-and-bounds survey to be completed within 180 days—which remains the seat of government. The House of Representatives is permanently expanded from 435 to 436 members to accommodate the new state's initial representative. The bill directs the Mayor to conduct primary and general elections within 30 days of receiving presidential certification, with results certified to the President, who then has 90 days to issue the admission proclamation. Implementation begins immediately upon enactment, with the survey and elections occurring within months. The new state's senators and representative assume their seats in Congress upon admission. Existing federal employee benefits, court systems, and federal agency operations in the district continue under federal responsibility. The bill permits D.C. residents to vote in federal elections in their state of most recent domicile rather than as residents of the capital. A Statehood Transition Commission coordinates the administrative shift. The bill includes provisions allowing expedited consideration of a constitutional amendment to repeal the 23rd Amendment, which currently grants D.C. electoral votes, and repeals the Office of D.C. Delegate and related presidential election provisions once statehood takes effect.
Government Operations and Politics
Latest updateJan 3, 2025
Referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and in addition to the Committees on Rules, Armed Services, the Judiciary, and Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Government Operations and Politics
Government Operations and PoliticsHR-79-119Latest action: Jan 3, 20250 readersIn Committee
Freedom from Mandates Act
Sponsored by Andy Biggs
During the COVID-19 pandemic, the federal government issued executive orders requiring vaccination against COVID-19 for federal employees and contractors. Additionally, the Department of Labor proposed rules that would have required private employers to mandate vaccination or testing for their workers. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services also established conditions requiring health care providers participating in Medicare and Medicaid to implement vaccination mandates for their staff. These policies generated significant debate over the balance between public health measures and individual choice regarding medical decisions. The Freedom from Mandates Act nullifies two executive orders—Executive Order 14042, which required COVID-19 safety protocols for federal contractors, and Executive Order 14043, which mandated COVID-19 vaccination for federal employees. The bill also prohibits the Secretary of Labor from issuing any rule requiring employers to mandate employee vaccination against COVID-19 or to require testing of unvaccinated employees. Additionally, it prohibits the Secretary of Health and Human Services from requiring health care providers to mandate vaccination as a condition of participating in Medicare or Medicaid, and bars the department from penalizing providers that decline to implement such mandates. These changes take effect upon enactment. The nullification of the executive orders immediately removes those requirements from federal contractors and employees. The prohibitions on future rulemaking prevent the Department of Labor from establishing new vaccination mandate requirements through the regulatory process. For health care providers, the bill eliminates existing vaccination conditions tied to Medicare and Medicaid participation, allowing providers to set their own policies without federal penalty. No new funding is required, as the bill primarily removes existing requirements rather than establishing new programs or obligations.
Government Operations and Politics
Latest updateJan 3, 2025
Referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and in addition to the Committees on Education and Workforce, Energy and Commerce, and Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Government Operations and Politics
Government Operations and PoliticsHR-154-119Latest action: Jan 3, 20250 readersIn Committee
Election Day Act
Sponsored by Brian Fitzpatrick
Currently, federal law designates ten specific days as paid holidays for federal employees under title 5 of the United States Code. These holidays include New Year's Day, Independence Day, Thanksgiving, Christmas, and others. However, Election Day—the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November—is not among the federally recognized holidays. Federal employees must work on Election Day unless they take personal leave, and most private-sector workers similarly receive no guaranteed time off to vote or participate in the electoral process. The Election Day Act amends title 5, United States Code, by inserting "Election Day" into the list of federal holidays recognized under section 6103(a). This change requires the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to treat Election Day as a paid holiday for all federal employees, effective upon enactment. The bill does not specify which Tuesday in November constitutes Election Day, relying instead on the existing federal election calendar established by statute. Federal employees would receive paid time off on Election Day, matching the treatment afforded to other designated holidays. Implementation would be immediate upon the bill's enactment, with no additional appropriations required beyond existing federal payroll budgets. The Office of Personnel Management would update holiday schedules and payroll systems to reflect the new designation. Federal agencies would close or operate on reduced schedules on Election Day, similar to other federal holidays. The change would not directly affect private-sector employers, though it may encourage states or private companies to adopt similar policies. The fiscal impact on the federal government would be modest, representing one additional paid day off per year for approximately 2.3 million federal employees.
Government Operations and Politics
Latest updateJan 3, 2025
Referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
Government Operations and Politics