Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

Maddy summaryHR 1954, the "Do No Harm Act," amends the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) to clarify that RFRA does not override specific federal laws protecting against harm. It explicitly exempts provisions related to anti-discrimination (like the Civil Rights Act), workplace protections (wages, leave, collective activity), child safety, and healthcare access from RFRA's requirements. The bill ensures RFRA cannot be used to challenge government programs or contracts that provide these essential protections. It also clarifies that RFRA applies only to disputes involving government as a party, not private disputes between individuals. This change preserves existing legal safeguards while modifying RFRA's scope.

Maddy summaryHR 1944, the "10 Percent Credit Card Interest Rate Cap Act," would cap the annual percentage rate (APR) for credit cards at 10%, including all finance charges. It prohibits creditors from using non-finance-charge fees to circumvent this limit and allows consumers who paid over the 10% rate to recover those amounts within two years. The bill amends the Truth in Lending Act to establish this federal standard, while allowing states to maintain stricter consumer protections. This provision would expire on January 1, 2031, as specified in the bill's sunset clause.

Protecting Americans’ Social Security Data Act This bill prohibits political appointees and special government employees from accessing Social Security data systems that contain personally identifiable information about Social Security beneficiaries. Specifically, political appointees and special government employees may not access systems maintained by the Social Security Administration (SSA) that issue or record Social Security account numbers, that are used to determine eligibility for or to pay Social Security benefits, or that otherwise contain personally identifiable information about individuals receiving or applying for benefits.  The bill also establishes a civil right of action for an individual whose information was negligently accessed or disclosed in violation of these provisions. The individual may bring suit against the United States if the violator was a U.S. employee or officer, or against the violator if they were not a U.S. employee or officer. Such a claim must be brought within two years of the affected individual’s discovery of the violation. Upon a finding of liability, defendants are liable for specified monetary damages.  If an individual is criminally charged or subject to proposed disciplinary or adverse action by a federal or state agency for having accessed or disclosed information in violation of these provisions, SSA must notify the individual whose information was accessed or disclosed of the violation as soon as practicable.  Finally, the bill requires the SSA Office of the Inspector General to investigate and report to Congress on any unauthorized access to or disclosure of information in a beneficiary data system.

Maddy summaryThis bill strengthens the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by clarifying how to prove voting discrimination and expanding requirements for preclearance of voting changes. It establishes new standards for determining when voting practices dilute minority voting strength or deny/abridge voting rights, requiring plaintiffs to show specific conditions for vote dilution claims and including factors like historical discrimination and racial polarization in court analyses. The bill modifies the criteria for determining which states and political subdivisions must seek preclearance for voting changes, and adds new transparency requirements for jurisdictions to publicly disclose changes to voting qualifications, polling locations, and election districts. It directly affects states and local governments that implement voting policies, particularly those with a history of voting rights violations or that make changes to voting qualifications, procedures, or district boundaries. The bill aims to prevent discriminatory voting practices by providing clearer standards for courts and requiring greater transparency in voting rule changes.

Maddy summaryThe Richard L. Trumka Protecting the Right to Organize Act of 2025 strengthens workers' organizing rights by making it an unfair labor practice for employers to threaten permanent replacement of striking workers, discriminate against workers who support unions, or require employees to attend employer campaigns unrelated to their job duties. It expands the definition of "employee" to make it harder for companies to classify workers as independent contractors and requires employers to post notices about workers' rights in conspicuous locations. The bill establishes a new electronic voting system for union elections, creates a 90-day bargaining period before mediation can be requested, and increases penalties for violations of labor laws. These changes are intended to make it easier for workers to form unions and negotiate better wages and working conditions.

Maddy summaryHR 1835 (MERIT Act) provides reinstatement or compensation to federal employees who were terminated during a specific mass layoff period (January 20, 2025, through the bill’s enactment date). Affected probationary employees - newly hired workers on a trial period or not yet permanent - can choose to return to a similar position with matching benefits or receive a lump-sum payment covering the pay difference between their terminated role and any new federal job they held during the layoff period. Agencies must notify affected employees within 30 days and offer reinstatement or payment within 90 days, with employees required to accept or decline within 30 days to avoid losing eligibility. The bill defines "mass termination" as 15+ separations in a 30-day period by a single agency.

Maddy summaryHJRES 70 is a joint resolution seeking congressional disapproval of a proposed license amendment to export specific U.S. defense equipment to Israel. It directly targets a planned transfer of 15,500 additional JDAM tail kits and 615 Small Diameter Bombs (SDBs) to the Israeli Ministry of Defense, as outlined in Transmittal No. DDTC 24-052. The bill would prohibit the issuance of this license amendment, effectively blocking the additional weapons exports. This resolution focuses on halting a specific authorization under the Arms Export Control Act, affecting only the designated defense articles and their intended end-use by Israel's military.

Maddy summaryHJRES 69 is a joint resolution that would prohibit a specific proposed U.S. military sale to Israel. It blocks the transfer of 2,166 GBU-39 bombs, thousands of bomb components and guidance kits, and related support services detailed in a February 2025 arms sale notification. The bill directly affects Israel by preventing the acquisition of these defense articles under the proposed transaction. It uses the statutory process for congressional disapproval under the Arms Export Control Act to stop this particular sale. The resolution does not alter broader U.S. policy toward Israel but targets this specific military equipment transfer.

Maddy summaryHJRES 68 is a congressional resolution seeking to block a specific proposed U.S. military sale to Israel. It targets defense articles and services detailed in Transmittal No. 24-16, including 10,000 additional M107/M795 155mm artillery shells and related support like technical documentation and engineering services. The resolution would prohibit this sale by invoking Congress's disapproval authority under the Arms Export Control Act. It directly affects the U.S. government's ability to proceed with this particular foreign military sale to Israel. The measure focuses solely on stopping this specific transaction, not broader policy changes.

Maddy summaryHJRES 71 is a joint resolution seeking congressional disapproval of a specific proposed foreign military sale to Israel. It targets Transmittal No. 24-104, which includes 3,000 AGM-114 Hellfire missiles (in various variants) and related support items like spare parts, training, software, and logistics services. The resolution aims to block this sale under the Arms Export Control Act by prohibiting the specific defense articles and services listed. If passed, it would prevent the U.S. government from proceeding with this particular military transfer to Israel.