Referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
This bill directs the Census Bureau to assess the feasibility of, and then annually publish, a table estimating people who experience both hearing and vision loss using American Community Survey (ACS) data. The table must be state-sorted and include sex, race, age, and economic characteristics (employment, education, earnings, poverty), while excluding personally identifiable information.
Privacy and reidentification risk versus need for visibility.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a focused reporting requirement that is generally well-specified in deliverables and responsible party but omits funding and many technical implementation details.
This bill directs the Census Bureau to assess the feasibility of, and then annually publish, a table estimating people who experience both hearing and vision loss using American Community Survey (ACS) data.
The table must be state-sorted and include sex, race, age, and economic characteristics (employment, education, earnings, poverty), while excluding personally identifiable information.
A feasibility report on publishing the table and expanding ACS data collection on combined hearing and vision loss is required within 180 days of enactment.
Content is narrow and noncontroversial so substantive opposition is unlikely, but standalone technical measures sometimes stall due to competing priorities and absent appropriations language.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a focused reporting requirement that is generally well-specified in deliverables and responsible party but omits funding and many technical implementation details.
Privacy and reidentification risk versus need for visibility.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Privacy and reidentification risk versus need for visibility.
Likely strongly supportive: this creates visibility for a marginalized disability group and enables targeted services and civil-rights enforcement.
They will emphasize addressing undercounting and expanding survey questions to capture lived identity and service needs.
Generally supportive but pragmatic: the bill is a modest, data-driven step using existing surveys, yet warrants scrutiny on methodology, privacy, and cost.
They will want clear feasibility, transparent methods, and assurance of minimal burden.
Cautiously receptive but skeptical: supporting better information on vulnerable populations is understandable, but they will worry about federal overreach, privacy risks, and added bureaucracy.
Preference for cost-neutral, limited federal action is likely.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Content is narrow and noncontroversial so substantive opposition is unlikely, but standalone technical measures sometimes stall due to competing priorities and absent appropriations language.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Privacy and reidentification risk versus need for visibility.
Content is narrow and noncontroversial so substantive opposition is unlikely, but standalone technical measures sometimes stall due to comp…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a focused reporting requirement that is generally well-specified in deliverables and responsible party but omits funding and many technical implementation details.
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.