The paragraph under each bill and the scores beside it were written by an AI model from the bill's text; the rest is the record.
▶In committee12 billsIntroduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
What happens next: The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Now: handed to a committee to examine — Committee on Oversight and Government Reform · Mar 18
This bill aims to amend the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006. The primary goal is to change the timeline for when federal award information must be made available to the public.
Yes
Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see?+8The bill shortens the deadline for posting federal award information from 30 days to 3 days, providing more immediate public access to government spending data.
Now: handed to a committee to examine — Committee on Oversight and Government Reform · Jan 21
This bill establishes specific driver requirements for companies seeking federal contracts.
Yes· 2 of 3
Would people with disabilities be better off under this?+5The bill protects drivers who are deaf or hearing impaired by exempting them from the English proficiency requirement.
Does this expand the rights of people with disabilities?+5The bill includes a specific exception to the English proficiency requirement for drivers who are deaf or hearing impaired and use American Sign Language.
The opposite· 2 of 6
Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this?-5The requirement that drivers be at least 21 years old prevents younger adults from qualifying for these contract positions.
Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this?-5The English proficiency mandate may disproportionately affect Hispanic American drivers who are non-native speakers.
Now: handed to a committee to examine — Committee on Ways and Means · May 13
This bill aims to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal various green energy tax subsidies.
Yes· 2 of 4
Does this reduce what the federal government spends?+5The bill reduces government spending by repealing numerous renewable energy tax credits and subsidies.
Would business owners be better off under this?+2The repeal of the petroleum tax provides a direct cost reduction for businesses operating in the energy sector.
The opposite· 2 of 11
Does this cut the pollution that drives climate change?-5The repeal of credits for clean hydrogen, carbon sequestration, and renewable electricity may reduce incentives for reducing carbon output.
Does this reduce how much oil, gas and coal is produced?-4The repeal of the petroleum tax reduces the fiscal barrier to producing and using fossil fuels.
Now: handed to a committee to examine — Committee on Highways and Transit · Apr 10
This bill aims to prevent the Administrator of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration from making certain new rules.
Yes· 2 of 6
Would business owners be better off under this?+2The bill directly benefits commercial vehicle and logistics business owners by reducing regulatory constraints.
Would farmers be better off under this?+1The bill may benefit agricultural logistics and transport sectors.
The opposite· 2 of 6
Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices?-2Preventing speed limiting devices could potentially decrease safety standards for consumers using public roadways.
Does this give the federal government more power?-2The bill explicitly limits the authority of a federal administrator.
Now: handed to a committee to examine — Committee on Nutrition and Foreign Agriculture · Apr 18
This bill aims to assist individuals receiving Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits in achieving self-sufficiency.
Yes· 2 of 4
Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see?+2The bill mandates new data collection and reporting requirements to provide a better picture of poverty and program outcomes.
Does this make the government pay for what it commits to?+1The bill increases state-level financial responsibility through required matching funds for administration.
The opposite· 2 of 4
Would households on low incomes be better off under this?-5Stricter work requirements, tighter eligibility criteria, and penalties for EBT use may negatively affect low-income households.
Is this likely to lower what families pay for groceries?-5The bill introduces stricter work requirements and more stringent eligibility criteria for SNAP benefits.
This bill authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to pay $137,500,000 to the Quapaw Nation and certain members.
Yes· 2 of 4
Would Native Americans be better off under this?+8The bill authorizes a $137,500,000 settlement payment specifically for the Quapaw Nation and its members.
Would households on low incomes be better off under this?+5The settlement provides direct financial transfers to individual claimants of the Quapaw Nation.
The opposite
Does this reduce what the federal government spends?-1The bill requires an authorized payment of $137,500,000 from the Treasury.
Now: handed to a committee to examine — Committee on Appropriations · Feb 14
This bill seeks to move money between government agencies. It mandates the transfer of unobligated funds currently held by the United States Agency for International Development.
Yes
Does this improve help for people hit by a disaster?+5The bill transfers funds directly into the Disaster Relief Fund to support major disaster relief efforts.
Would people in cities be better off under this?+2Increased disaster relief capabilities can benefit urban areas subject to major disasters.
The opposite
Does this send more money or help to other countries?-5The bill reduces international aid by diverting unobligated funds away from the United States Agency for International Development.
Does this reduce what the federal government spends?-2The bill reduces spending by the United States Agency for International Development by transferring its unobligated funds away.
Now: handed to a committee to examine — Committee on Ways and Means · Jan 24
This bill aims to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. It seeks to prohibit certain abortions from being treated as qualified medical expenses.
Yes
No question was scored yes.
The opposite· 2 of 9
Does this make abortion easier to get?-5The bill makes abortion-related expenses ineligible for tax-free reimbursement from HSAs, MSAs, and other health accounts, except in specific cases.
Would women be better off under this?-5The bill limits the ability to use tax-advantaged health accounts for abortion services except in specific circumstances.
Now: handed to a committee to examine — Committee on Energy and Commerce · Jan 24
This bill aims to amend title XI of the Social Security Act. It seeks to limit demonstration projects related to abortion under Medicaid and CHIP.
Yes
Does this give the federal government more power?+2The bill empowers the federal government to prohibit specific types of state Medicaid demonstration projects.
The opposite· 2 of 7
Does this make abortion easier to get?-7The bill prohibits federal financial assistance for abortion services and related travel or lodging expenses.
Would women be better off under this?-6The bill limits women's access to abortion services and related financial support for travel and lodging.
