Referred to the Committee on Armed Services, and in addition to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for con…
Requires the Secretary of Defense, consulting with the Secretaries of Veterans Affairs and Labor, to submit to Congress within 180 days a report updating a 2018 study on military credentialing programs. The report must assess how many veterans transfer military-acquired credentials to civilian jobs, which certifications are most used (for example, airplane mechanics), and barriers to converting military mechanical skills to State professional certifications.
Progressive wants stronger follow-up action and funding.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a straightforward, time-bound reporting mandate that identifies lead and consultative agencies and enumerates specific assessment topics, but it provides limited methodological, resourcing, and accountability detail.
Requires the Secretary of Defense, consulting with the Secretaries of Veterans Affairs and Labor, to submit to Congress within 180 days a report updating a 2018 study on military credentialing programs.
The report must assess how many veterans transfer military-acquired credentials to civilian jobs, which certifications are most used (for example, airplane mechanics), and barriers to converting military mechanical skills to State professional certifications.
The bill defines applicable licensing authority, eligible professional credential (tied to expenses paid under 10 U.S.C. 2015), servicemember, expenses, and ‘‘State.’'.
Content is uncontroversial and narrow, increasing prospects, but as a standalone report bill it may stall absent committee or floor prioritization.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a straightforward, time-bound reporting mandate that identifies lead and consultative agencies and enumerates specific assessment topics, but it provides limited methodological, resourcing, and accountability detail.
Progressive wants stronger follow-up action and funding.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressive wants stronger follow-up action and funding.
Likely supportive as a targeted measure to improve veterans' economic opportunity and reduce state licensing barriers.
Will view the report as a necessary first step but insufficient without funding or follow-up implementation.
Generally favorable toward evidence-gathering to inform policy, while cautious that a report alone may duplicate past work.
Will want clear metrics, cost estimates, and concrete recommendations.
Mildly supportive if framed strictly as information gathering for veterans' employment.
Concerned about federal encroachment on state licensing and possible follow-on federal mandates.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Content is uncontroversial and narrow, increasing prospects, but as a standalone report bill it may stall absent committee or floor prioritization.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressive wants stronger follow-up action and funding.
Content is uncontroversial and narrow, increasing prospects, but as a standalone report bill it may stall absent committee or floor priorit…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a straightforward, time-bound reporting mandate that identifies lead and consultative agencies and enumerates specific assessment topics, but it provides limited m…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.