PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Congressional Research Service
No official summary is available in the imported record yet.
People & committees
Rep. Mrvan, Frank J. [D-IN-1] · D–IN
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR H5828)
Referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee on Education and Workforce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee on Education and Workforce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We also preserved the text version used in the PlainBill explanation below.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Sep 22, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.10194 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.10194 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.10194 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.10194 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.
PlainBill explanation
Based on the full Introduced in House · 2026-08-31 text. This explanation has not received human editorial review. This overview describes the proposal’s major provisions; it does not establish what its real-world effects would be.
This bill would restrict employers’ access to federal funds during employee lockouts and for specified periods afterward. It would also deny corporations some or all tax credits—amounts that reduce taxes owed—in years when they lock out employees, with an exception for credits directly attributable to tax payments.
no Federal funds may be made available to, or obligated or expended by, an employer during— (1) any lock-out period; and (2) (A) if no preceding lock-out period has occurred with respect to such employer, an additional period that— (i) begins on the first day following the lock-out period; and (ii) is equal in length to the number of days in such lock-out period; and (B) in any other case, the 1-year period beginning on the day following the lock-out period.
(1) if no preceding lock-out period has occurred with respect to such corporation during such taxable year, no credit shall be allowed under this title with respect to such corporation for such taxable year to the extent of the amount of such credit that is properly allocable to such lock-out period, and (2) in any other case, no credit shall be allowed under this title with respect to such corporation for such taxable year. The preceding sentence shall not apply with respect to any credit directly attributable to a payment of tax by the corporation.
Section 1 would name the bill the Preventing Revenue Opportunities for Workplace Lockouts and Retaliation Act, or PRO–WORK Act.
This Act may be cited as the Preventing Revenue Opportunities for Workplace Lockouts and Retaliation Act or PRO–WORK Act.
Section 2 would add a prohibition to the National Labor Relations Act beginning January 1, 2026, overriding other laws. Federal funds could not be made available to an employer, or committed or spent by it, during a lockout. The section defines the covered period as any time the employer is engaged in a lockout of employees.
The National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 151 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:
Beginning on January 1, 2026, and notwithstanding any other provision of law, no Federal funds may be made available to, or obligated or expended by, an employer during— (1) any lock-out period;
the term lock-out period means, with respect to an employer, any period of time during which such employer is engaged in a lock-out of employees.
For an employer with no previous lockout, the funding ban would continue after the lockout for the same number of days that the lockout lasted. Otherwise, the ban would continue for one year after the lockout ends. This provision states no time limit on how far back a previous lockout would count.
(2) (A) if no preceding lock-out period has occurred with respect to such employer, an additional period that— (i) begins on the first day following the lock-out period; and (ii) is equal in length to the number of days in such lock-out period; and (B) in any other case, the 1-year period beginning on the day following the lock-out period.
Employers would have to repay federal funds they committed or spent in violation of the prohibition during portions of lockouts occurring between January 1, 2026, and enactment. This repayment clause specifically addresses lockout periods, rather than the additional periods after lockouts.
Each employer shall reimburse the Federal Government for any funds obligated or expended by the employer in violation of subsection (a) during any part of a lock-out period that occurred during the period beginning on January 1, 2026, and ending on the date of enactment of the Preventing Revenue Opportunities for Workplace Lockouts and Retaliation Act.
Section 3 would add a corporate tax-credit restriction to the Internal Revenue Code. For a corporation’s first lockout in a tax year, it would deny the portion of credits properly attributable to that lockout. A subsequent lockout in the same tax year would trigger denial of credits for the entire year, subject to the tax-payment exception.
Part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new subpart:
In the case of a corporation with respect to which a lock-out period occurs during any taxable year— (1) if no preceding lock-out period has occurred with respect to such corporation during such taxable year, no credit shall be allowed under this title with respect to such corporation for such taxable year to the extent of the amount of such credit that is properly allocable to such lock-out period, and (2) in any other case, no credit shall be allowed under this title with respect to such corporation for such taxable year.
The preceding sentence shall not apply with respect to any credit directly attributable to a payment of tax by the corporation.
Credits directly attributable to a corporation’s payment of tax would be exempt from the new denial rule. The exception would preserve their availability under other applicable rules, rather than create a new credit.
The preceding sentence shall not apply with respect to any credit directly attributable to a payment of tax by the corporation.
For the tax restriction, a lockout period would mean time when the corporation locks out employees within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. Persons treated as a single employer under Internal Revenue Code section 52(a) and (b) would be treated as one corporation when applying this restriction.
the term lock-out period means, with respect to any corporation for any taxable year, any period of time during which such corporation is engaged in a lock-out of employees (within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act).
All persons which are treated as a single employer under subsections (a) and (b) of section 52 shall be treated as a single corporation.
The tax provision would require the Secretary administering it to issue necessary or appropriate regulations or guidance in consultation with the Secretary of Labor.
The Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of Labor, shall prescribe such regulations or other guidance as may be necessary or appropriate to carry out the purposes of this section.
The tax amendments would apply to tax years beginning after December 31, 2025.
The amendments made by this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2025.
The supplied September 22, 2026, source snapshot records introduction in the House and referral to the Ways and Means and Education and Workforce committees on August 31, 2026. It also records sponsor introductory remarks on September 15, 2026. These entries do not establish enactment.
Source snapshot updated 2026-09-22T15:26:25Z. 2026-09-15: Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR H5828)
2026-08-31: Referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee on Education and Workforce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
2026-08-31: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2026-08-31. These findings describe provisions and who may benefit; they are not judgments of waste, corruption, or motive.
This review covers the supplied bill text. “None identified” does not rule out provisions in later versions or accompanying reports and disclosures.
Provisions outside the bill’s main subject, or policy changes attached to appropriations.
None identified in the reviewed text
No provision unrelated to the bill’s main subject was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion does not establish what appears in other versions or accompanying materials.
Spending directed to particular recipients or places outside ordinary competitive or formula-based allocation.
None identified in the reviewed text
No congressionally directed spending for particular recipients or places was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish formal earmark status in accompanying materials.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
None identified in the reviewed text
No materially narrow preferential benefit was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Sep 22, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI