Referred to the Committee on Rules, and in addition to the Committee on House Administration, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for considera…
The bill requires committee chairs in both Houses to report, within 3 legislative days, the names of Members who submitted amendments adopted by the committee (or who are responsible for included provisions for certain high‑value committees). For measures passed by either House, the respective Rules Committee must report names of Members whose adopted amendments were accepted.
Transparency benefit vs. fear of chilling bipartisan negotiation.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly focused administrative rule change that is specific about required actions and responsible parties but limited in explanatory context and lacking in enforcement, cost acknowledgment, and handling of practical edge cases.
The bill requires committee chairs in both Houses to report, within 3 legislative days, the names of Members who submitted amendments adopted by the committee (or who are responsible for included provisions for certain high‑value committees).
For measures passed by either House, the respective Rules Committee must report names of Members whose adopted amendments were accepted.
The Clerk, Secretary, and Government Publishing Office must include those names as footnotes in reported, engrossed, enrolled, or enacted versions.
Low-cost, narrow transparency measure improves chances in one chamber but faces institutional resistance and coordination needs to pass both Houses.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly focused administrative rule change that is specific about required actions and responsible parties but limited in explanatory context and lacking in enforcement, cost acknowledgment, and handling of practical edge cases.
Transparency benefit vs. fear of chilling bipartisan negotiation.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Transparency benefit vs. fear of chilling bipartisan negotiation.
Generally favorable toward increased legislative transparency and accountability, seeing it as a tool to track who is responsible for policy language.
Concerned about possible chilling effects on coalition‑building or retaliation against Members supporting vulnerable populations.
Would support with safeguards against misuse and clarity on ambiguous terms.
Cautiously supportive because the bill adds procedural transparency without changing policy substance.
Wants clearer definitions, administrative cost estimates, and processes to avoid misattribution.
Likely to back the concept if implementation is practical and non‑disruptive.
Mixed to skeptical.
Values transparency about who sponsors language but worries this imposes new bureaucracy and could politicize ordinary committee bargaining.
Concerned about unintended interference with legislative discretion and increased administrative workload.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Low-cost, narrow transparency measure improves chances in one chamber but faces institutional resistance and coordination needs to pass both Houses.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Transparency benefit vs. fear of chilling bipartisan negotiation.
Low-cost, narrow transparency measure improves chances in one chamber but faces institutional resistance and coordination needs to pass bot…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly focused administrative rule change that is specific about required actions and responsible parties but limited in explanatory context and lacking in enf…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.