Referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce.
This bill would nullify the Department of Labor’s final rule titled “Updating the Davis-Bacon and Related Acts Regulation” (88 Fed. Reg. 57526 (Aug. 23, 2023)) by providing that the rule "shall have no force or effect." The text is a single substantive step: removal of the specified DOL regulation from force.
Progressives emphasize protecting prevailing wages and worker protections; conservatives emphasize cutting regulatory burden and saving taxpayer/contractor costs.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly targeted statutory disapproval that correctly and unambiguously identifies the specific agency final rule to be nullified but provides minimal ancillary detail about legal, fiscal, or administrative consequences.
This bill would nullify the Department of Labor’s final rule titled “Updating the Davis-Bacon and Related Acts Regulation” (88 Fed.
Reg. 57526 (Aug. 23, 2023)) by providing that the rule "shall have no force or effect." The text is a single substantive step: removal of the specified DOL regulation from force.
The bill does not include additional implementation details, funding changes, or replacements for the nullified rule.
On content alone the bill is narrow and administratively simple, which increases tractability. However, it is a direct effort to nullify an agency regulation on a politically contested labor/regulatory issue, which tends to be partisan. Successful enactment requires both chambers and the executive's agreement (or avoidance of veto), so absent clear, broad bipartisan support or a specific fast‑track procedure, the probability of becoming law is low.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly targeted statutory disapproval that correctly and unambiguously identifies the specific agency final rule to be nullified but provides minimal ancillary detail about legal, fiscal, or administrative consequences.
Progressives emphasize protecting prevailing wages and worker protections; conservatives emphasize cutting regulatory burden and saving taxpayer/contractor costs.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives emphasize protecting prevailing wages and worker protections; conservatives emphasize cutting regulatory burden and saving taxpayer/contractor costs.
A mainstream progressive would likely view this bill as an attempt to roll back worker protections tied to prevailing wages on federal construction projects.
They would be concerned that nullifying the DOL update would weaken enforcement or narrow coverage of the Davis-Bacon Act and thereby reduce wages and benefits for construction workers and unionized labor.
Because the bill text does not explain alternatives, they would see it as a unilateral removal of regulation without replacement or mitigation for affected workers.
A moderate would approach this bill pragmatically, wanting to know precisely what the DOL rule changed and the fiscal and economic impacts of undoing it.
They would weigh potential benefits from reduced regulatory complexity and lower contractor costs against harms to workers’ wages and project quality.
Without clear cost estimates or transitional measures in the bill text, a centrist would likely be cautious and undecided.
A mainstream conservative would likely support this bill as a rollback of federal regulatory overreach and as a way to limit administrative changes they view as expanding labor mandates.
They would frame nullifying the DOL rule as protecting taxpayers and contractors from added costs and restoring decision-making to Congress or to states and local project owners.
They would favor reducing regulatory complexity and would be inclined to back the bill unless it produced clear, demonstrable harms to national security or essential public interests.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
On content alone the bill is narrow and administratively simple, which increases tractability. However, it is a direct effort to nullify an agency regulation on a politically contested labor/regulatory issue, which tends to be partisan. Successful enactment requires both chambers and the executive's agreement (or avoidance of veto), so absent clear, broad bipartisan support or a specific fast‑track procedure, the probability of becoming law is low.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives emphasize protecting prevailing wages and worker protections; conservatives emphasize cutting regulatory burden and saving tax…
On content alone the bill is narrow and administratively simple, which increases tractability. However, it is a direct effort to nullify an…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly targeted statutory disapproval that correctly and unambiguously identifies the specific agency final rule to be nullified but provides minimal ancillary…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.