HR-9358-119
Referred to the Subcommittee on Oversight, Investigations, and Accountability.
Sponsored by Seth Magaziner (D-RI)
What it does
This bill would do several things at once: (1) ban Members of Congress, the President, the Vice President, and their spouses and dependent children from owning or trading individual stocks, commodities, futures, and derivatives, with required divestiture within 180 days and financial penalties for violations; (2) require most U.S. employers with one or more employees to provide up to 80 hours of paid annual leave per year, accruing at one hour per 25 hours worked; (3) restore and extend clean energy production and investment tax credits for wind and solar facilities that were curtailed by a prior reconciliation law (Public Law 119-21); (4) add Medicare coverage for fall prevention items such as grab bars, non-slip mats, and shower chairs when ordered by a physician; (5) extend PEPFAR (the U.S. global HIV/AIDS program) authorization through 2030; and (6) repeal Sections 10101–10108 of Public Law 119-21, reversing recent changes to unspecified underlying statutes made by that reconciliation law.
Who benefits
Workers at employers with 1+ employees who currently receive no paid vacation — estimated tens of millions, disproportionately low-wage, part-time, and service-sector workers. Medicare beneficiaries (65+) who would gain coverage for fall prevention equipment, reducing out-of-pocket costs. Wind and solar energy developers and investors who would regain tax credits curtailed by PL 119-21. Communities in developing nations affected by HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria who depend on PEPFAR-funded programs. The general public, to the extent the congressional stock trading ban reduces conflicts of interest in lawmaking. Inspectors general and oversight bodies whose PEPFAR review authority would be extended.
Who is hurt
Employers — particularly small businesses, restaurants, retail, and seasonal employers — who would face new mandatory paid leave costs and administrative compliance burdens. Members of Congress, the President, the Vice President, and their families who would be required to divest individual securities holdings, potentially at an inopportune time or at a tax cost despite certificate-of-divestiture provisions. Fossil fuel energy producers who would face a more competitive landscape if wind and solar tax credits are restored. Taxpayers who bear the cost of expanded Medicare benefits and restored energy tax credits. Workers in states or localities with existing paid leave laws that do not separately categorize sick and annual leave, whose employers may face dual compliance complexity.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the congressional stock trading ban addresses a documented conflict-of-interest problem: studies have found that Members of Congress have historically outperformed market benchmarks, raising questions about whether legislative access to non-public information influences trades. On paid leave, they argue the United States is the only wealthy nation without a federal paid vacation guarantee, leaving an estimated 33 million workers — disproportionately low-income — with no paid time off. On Medicare fall prevention, they contend that falls are the leading cause of injury death among adults 65+, and that covering low-cost preventive equipment would reduce costly hospitalizations. Restoring clean energy credits, they argue, preserves jobs and investment commitments already made in reliance on prior law.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the mandatory paid leave mandate would impose significant new costs on small and seasonal employers, potentially reducing hiring or hours for the very workers it aims to help — a concern supported by economic literature on mandated benefit incidence. On the stock trading ban, critics contend that forced divestiture of family assets, including those of spouses with independent careers, constitutes an overreach that may deter qualified candidates from public service. On the energy credits, opponents argue that restoring wind and solar preferences reversed by a duly enacted reconciliation law substitutes one Congress's policy judgment for another's and adds to the federal deficit. The bill's breadth — spanning 20+ committee jurisdictions — also raises concerns that unrelated provisions are being bundled to obscure individual tradeoffs.
Constitutional context
Congress's authority to mandate employer-provided paid leave rests on the Commerce Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 3), consistent with the framework used for the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Family and Medical Leave Act. The Medicare expansion draws on the Taxing and Spending Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 1). The energy tax credit provisions similarly rely on the taxing power. Post-Loper Bright (2024), any agency regulations implementing the paid leave or Medicare provisions would face independent judicial scrutiny rather than deferential review, potentially affecting how the Department of Labor defines terms like "bona fide business reason."
Checks and balances
Congress gains authority to restrict the investment activities of its own members and the executive branch's top officers; the executive branch (DOL, HHS, Treasury) gains rulemaking and enforcement power over employers and Medicare; federal courts retain review authority over agency rules under the post-Loper Bright independent-judgment standard, and the supervising ethics offices (House and Senate) serve as internal legislative branch checks on the trading ban.
Historical precedent
The STOCK Act of 2012 imposed disclosure and insider-trading restrictions on Members of Congress but stopped short of an outright ownership ban; the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 established the existing federal framework for unpaid leave using the same Commerce Clause authority this bill would extend to paid leave.