H.R. 98 (119th)Bill Overview

End Endless Criminal Statutes Act

Crime and Law Enforcement|Bank accounts, deposits, capitalCrime and Law Enforcement
Cosponsors
Support
Republican
Introduced
Jan 3, 2025
Discussions
Bill Text
Current stageCommittee

Ordered to be Reported in the Nature of a Substitute by the Yeas and Nays: 16 - 14.

Introduced
Committee
Floor
President
Law
Congressional Activities
01 · The brief
Plain-English summaryWhat this bill actually does

The bill, titled the End Endless Criminal Statutes Act, repeals a set of specified federal criminal provisions the text characterizes as unnecessary or antiquated and narrows one postal-uniform offense by adding an intent requirement. It removes or amends statutes addressing stamp removal, colored margarine restrictions, certain food and agricultural provisions, coin-making language, maritime and mail-related offenses, and a Capitol grounds protection provision.

Why people may split

Liberals emphasize civil-liberty gains and impacts on overpoliced communities

Watch point

Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly pursues substantive legal changes by repealing and amending named criminal provisions and gives a concise statement of the problem via Findings.

The bill, titled the End Endless Criminal Statutes Act, repeals a set of specified federal criminal provisions the text characterizes as unnecessary or antiquated and narrows one postal-uniform offense by adding an intent requirement.

It removes or amends statutes addressing stamp removal, colored margarine restrictions, certain food and agricultural provisions, coin-making language, maritime and mail-related offenses, and a Capitol grounds protection provision.

Passage40/100

Content is narrow, non-ideological cleanup with low fiscal impact, increasing feasibility; legislative calendar and possible agency objections reduce probability.

CredibilityPartially aligned

Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly pursues substantive legal changes by repealing and amending named criminal provisions and gives a concise statement of the problem via Findings. It specifies the statutory targets for repeal and amendment, but it omits implementation detail commonly expected for changes to criminal statutes (effective date/savings, transition provisions, fiscal acknowledgement, and monitoring).

Contention45/100

Liberals emphasize civil-liberty gains and impacts on overpoliced communities

02 · What it does

Who stands to gain, and who may push back.

Likely benefits vs burdens50% / 50%
Federal agenciesFederal agencies

These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.

Likely helped
  • Federal agenciesReduces the number of minor federal criminal offenses in the U.S. Code.
  • Potential benefitMay lower the number of prosecutions for de minimis conduct, saving prosecutorial resources.
  • Potential benefitIntroduces an intent requirement that narrows liability for wearing postal uniforms.
Likely burdened
  • Potential burdenRemoving criminal prohibitions may weaken deterrents against certain thefts or frauds involving mail and postage.
  • Federal agenciesRepeals of food and labeling provisions could reduce federal enforcement tools over product presentation.
  • Potential burdenEliminating a Capitol-ground protection could increase risk of turf or landscape damage from recreational use.
03 · Why people split

Why the argument around this bill splits.

Liberals emphasize civil-liberty gains and impacts on overpoliced communities
Progressive75%

Likely broadly supportive of removing criminal penalties for trivial or archaic conduct and tightening mens rea for the postal-uniform offense.

Would watch for effects on marginalized people who historically face disproportionate enforcement and want safeguards against new enforcement gaps.

Leans supportive
Centrist60%

Cautiously favorable toward repealing obviously obsolete criminal statutes, but wants clarity that public-safety and fraud protections remain intact.

Prefers measured fixes and oversight to ensure no unintended enforcement gaps.

Split reaction
Conservative90%

Generally supportive as deregulatory and commonsense pruning of the federal criminal code that limits federal reach into trivial conduct.

Appreciates adding intent requirements to avoid overcriminalization.

Leans supportive
04 · Can it pass?

The path through Congress.

Introduced

Reached or meaningfully advanced

Committee

Reached or meaningfully advanced

Floor

Still ahead

President

Still ahead

Law

Still ahead

Passage likelihood40/100

Content is narrow, non-ideological cleanup with low fiscal impact, increasing feasibility; legislative calendar and possible agency objections reduce probability.

Scope and complexity
52%
Scopemoderate
52%
Complexitymedium
Why this could stall
  • No Congressional Budget Office or cost estimate included
  • Potential objections from agencies (e.g., postal authorities, Capitol security)
05 · Recent votes

Recent votes on the bill.

No vote history yet

The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.

06 · Go deeper

Go deeper than the headline read.

Included on this page

Liberals emphasize civil-liberty gains and impacts on overpoliced communities

Content is narrow, non-ideological cleanup with low fiscal impact, increasing feasibility; legislative calendar and possible agency objecti…

Unlocked analysis

Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly pursues substantive legal changes by repealing and amending named criminal provisions and gives a concise statement of the problem via Findings. It specifies…

Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.

Perspective breakdownsPassage barriersLegislative design reviewStakeholder impact map
Open full analysis