Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
This bill creates new penalties and restrictions aimed at keeping call-center work in the United States. Employers who relocate a call center or contract at least 30% of call-center volume overseas must notify the Secretary of Labor 120 days in advance; those that do so are placed on a public list and generally become ineligible for federal grants or guaranteed loans for five years, with specified penalties and narrow waiver authorities.
Approach to enforcement: liberals favor strong penalties and job protections; conservatives see those penalties as government overreach and harmful to business.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a clearly targeted substantive policy measure that creates new obligations, eligibility restrictions, disclosure duties, and enforcement pathways.
This bill creates new penalties and restrictions aimed at keeping call-center work in the United States.
Employers who relocate a call center or contract at least 30% of call-center volume overseas must notify the Secretary of Labor 120 days in advance; those that do so are placed on a public list and generally become ineligible for federal grants or guaranteed loans for five years, with specified penalties and narrow waiver authorities.
Federal agencies are directed to prefer contractors not on the list and must require that any call-center work under federal contracts be performed in the United States.
On content alone, the bill is plausible but faces notable obstacles: it addresses an electorally salient policy (jobs/outsourcing) and contains consumer‑protection elements that could attract bipartisan backing, yet it imposes substantive penalties, procurement conditions, and compliance burdens that will draw opposition from business and procurement stakeholders and prompt concerns about administrative feasibility and legal risk. Those tensions make enactment uncertain without substantial amendment or inclusion in a larger negotiated package.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a clearly targeted substantive policy measure that creates new obligations, eligibility restrictions, disclosure duties, and enforcement pathways. It contains a strong set of definitions and concrete mechanisms for many of its primary functions and identifies responsible agencies and timelines for action. The bill includes secondary reporting and administrative elements that are coherent with the primary substantive changes.
Approach to enforcement: liberals favor strong penalties and job protections; conservatives see those penalties as government overreach and harmful to business.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Approach to enforcement: liberals favor strong penalties and job protections; conservatives see those penalties as government overreach and harmful to business.
A mainstream progressive would likely view the bill positively as a strong pro-worker measure that discourages offshoring, increases transparency, and protects U.S. call-center jobs.
The public list, grant/loan ineligibility, and federal contracting requirements are seen as concrete tools to shift incentives toward keeping work domestic.
The AI and location-disclosure requirements would be welcomed as consumer-protection and workplace-transparency measures.
A pragmatic moderate would find elements of the bill reasonable—transparency and protection of federal contract integrity—but would be cautious about blunt disincentives like multi-year grant ineligibility and steep penalties.
They would welcome the Labor Department report requirement and the phased effective dates, but worry about economic tradeoffs, administrative feasibility, and potential impacts on government procurement costs or small businesses.
They would favor narrowing or clarifying definitions, a clear and limited waiver process, and careful regulatory implementation by the FTC.
A mainstream conservative would likely view the bill as heavy-handed government interference in private business decisions and federal contracting, raising concerns about burdens on employers, market flexibility, and federal overreach.
While sympathetic to keeping jobs in the U.S., they would object to long ineligibility periods for grants/loans, steep penalties, and expanded FTC regulatory authority.
They would also see the location-disclosure and immediate-transfer requirements as operationally burdensome, legally risky, and potentially disruptive to business efficiency.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
On content alone, the bill is plausible but faces notable obstacles: it addresses an electorally salient policy (jobs/outsourcing) and contains consumer‑protection elements that could attract bipartisan backing, yet it imposes substantive penalties, procurement conditions, and compliance burdens that will draw opposition from business and procurement stakeholders and prompt concerns about administrative feasibility and legal risk. Those tensions make enactment uncertain without substantial amendment or inclusion in a larger negotiated package.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Approach to enforcement: liberals favor strong penalties and job protections; conservatives see those penalties as government overreach and…
On content alone, the bill is plausible but faces notable obstacles: it addresses an electorally salient policy (jobs/outsourcing) and cont…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a clearly targeted substantive policy measure that creates new obligations, eligibility restrictions, disclosure duties, and enforcement pathways. It contains a st…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.