Sen. Christopher Murphy

Maddy summaryThis resolution commemorates the fifth anniversary of the January 6, 2021, Capitol attack and honors the U.S. Capitol Police, Metropolitan Police Department, and Capitol staff (including custodial, janitorial, and maintenance personnel) who protected the building during the assault. It recognizes their bravery in defending Congress during the attack, which injured over 100 officers and contributed to five officer deaths, and acknowledges their ongoing essential work in maintaining Capitol operations. The resolution expresses Senate gratitude for their service and reaffirms commitment to protecting democratic processes. As a commemorative resolution, it does not create new laws or funding.

Maddy summaryThis bill prohibits the use of federal funds to compensate individuals prosecuted for the January 6 Capitol attack, including those later pardoned. It bans using funds from the Judgment Fund, victim compensation programs, or creating new compensation funds for these individuals. Additionally, it prevents refunds of court-ordered restitution, fines, or special assessments paid by convicted rioters, directing any such funds to the Architect of the Capitol instead. The law directly affects people convicted (or pardoned) for involvement in the January 6 attack.

Maddy summaryS 3581, the "No Settlements for January 6 Law Enforcement Assaulters Act," prohibits using federal funds (including the Judgment Fund) to settle claims by individuals convicted of assaulting law enforcement during the January 6, 2021, Capitol breach. It directly affects those convicted under federal or D.C. law for assaulting officers during the Capitol events, banning settlements for claims related to harm suffered during the events or prosecution for those acts. The bill's key mechanism blocks all federal financial obligations for such settlements, regardless of the claim's basis. This is a substantive policy change affecting legal settlements for specific convicted individuals, not a procedural measure.

Maddy summarySJRES 82 is a joint resolution seeking to block a rule issued by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) regarding how the agency should follow the text of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), a federal law governing how agencies create regulations. The rule, published in March 2025, was identified by the Government Accountability Office as a "rule" subject to the Congressional Review Act. If enacted, this resolution would void the HHS policy, preventing it from taking effect and requiring HHS to disregard this specific internal guideline. The bill directly affects HHS's rulemaking procedures by invalidating the policy statement on APA adherence.

Maddy summaryS 3571, the "Keeping Our Agents on the Line Act," restricts U.S. Border Patrol agents to patrolling within 25 miles of the U.S. land border, prohibiting them from conducting interior arrests or operations beyond this limit without specific exceptions (like emergencies or declared disasters). It requires U.S. Customs and Border Protection to publicly report data on checkpoint encounters (including breakdowns by citizenship status) and interior arrests (including agent training and case dispositions) within 30-90 days of enactment. The bill directly affects U.S. Border Patrol agents, their operational boundaries, and individuals encountered during border patrols or interior arrests, including U.S. citizens and residents. Key mechanisms include reaffirming the 25-mile limit, banning unauthorized interior authority delegation, and mandating transparency through public data reporting.

Maddy summaryThe Data Care Act of 2025 requires online service providers (like social media platforms or apps that collect user data) to securely handle "individual identifying data," especially sensitive information like health details, biometrics, financial data, or precise location. It imposes three key duties: (1) reasonably securing data from breaches, (2) not misusing data to harm users or benefit themselves, and (3) restricting data sharing to third parties only with strict confidentiality contracts. The Federal Trade Commission and state attorneys general can enforce these rules through penalties for violations, with civil fines calculated based on the number of affected users or days of noncompliance. The law directly affects major digital platforms collecting user data and takes effect 180 days after enactment.

Maddy summaryThis bill amends the Clayton Act to add a reference to itself within existing antitrust enforcement language. Specifically, it modifies Section 4C(a)(1) to include the phrase "or section 2 of this Act" after "any violation of the Sherman Act." The change directly affects how antitrust enforcement actions under the Clayton Act are referenced in legal proceedings. The bill does not introduce new substantive policy requirements but alters the statutory citation structure for consistency with its own provisions. (1 sentence summary: This procedural bill updates the Clayton Act's reference to itself in antitrust enforcement language.)

Maddy summaryThe GRACE Act (S 3535) sets a minimum annual refugee admission target of 125,000 for the U.S., requiring the President to determine this number based on humanitarian needs and national interest. It introduces community/private sponsorship for refugees, allowing groups to provide initial resettlement services instead of traditional agency support. The bill mandates quarterly public reports to Congress on admissions numbers, regional allocations aligned with UN resettlement needs, processing times, security checks, and any shortfall in meeting targets. This directly affects refugees seeking admission, the Department of Homeland Security (which administers processing), and Congress (through transparency requirements).

Maddy summaryThe Schedules That Work Act would require employers in retail, food service, cleaning, hospitality, and warehouse sectors to provide workers with at least 14 days' advance notice of their schedules and pay predictability pay for last-minute changes. It gives employees the right to request schedule changes for reasons including health conditions, caregiving responsibilities, or enrollment in career training programs. Employers must engage in a good-faith process to address these requests unless they have a legitimate business reason to deny them. The bill aims to address widespread problems with unpredictable schedules that make it difficult for low-wage workers to manage family responsibilities, access healthcare, and secure stable housing and child care.

Essential Caregivers Act of 2025   This bill prohibits certain health care facilities from limiting the access of essential caregivers to residents of those facilities, including during designated emergency periods.   Specifically, the bill generally prohibits Medicare skilled nursing facilities, Medicaid nursing facilities, Medicaid intermediate care facilities, and associated inpatient rehabilitation facilities from restricting the access of essential caregivers to residents of the facilities, including during emergency periods in which visitation rights are otherwise restricted. During emergency periods, facilities may restrict access for an initial period of up to seven days and for one additional maximum seven-day period (if the additional period is approved by the state health department). Facilities may restrict access for a total of 7 days (or 14 days with the approval of the state health department) during an emergency period. Essential caregivers must agree to comply with any safety protocols set by the facility, which may be no more stringent for caregivers compared to those for staff. Caregivers who fail to comply with these requirements may be denied access, subject to an appeals process.