PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Committee on Education and Workforce, and in addition to the Committees on House Administration, and Oversight and Government Reform, 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.
Congressional Research Service
No official summary is available in the imported record yet.
People & committees
Rep. Underwood, Lauren [D-IL-14] · D–IL
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Committee on Education and Workforce, and in addition to the Committees on House Administration, and Oversight and Government Reform, 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 Education and Workforce, and in addition to the Committees on House Administration, and Oversight and Government Reform, 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 Education and Workforce, and in addition to the Committees on House Administration, and Oversight and Government Reform, 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.
Source last updated: Sep 16, 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.1035 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.1035 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.1035 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.1035 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 · 2025-02-05 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.
The proposed Job Protection Act would expand family and medical leave coverage by changing the employer-size threshold from 50 employees to one and replacing employee eligibility language with a requirement of at least 90 days with the employer. It would also change employment-duration requirements for federal, presidential and congressional employees. These are proposed amendments; the supplied record does not establish that they became law.
This Act may be cited as the Job Protection Act.
employed for at least 90 days by the employer with respect to whom leave is requested under section 102.
(b) Federal employees
by striking 12 months and inserting 90 days.
(2) Presidential employees Section 412(a)(2)(B) of title 3, United States Code, is amended by striking 12 months and for at least 1,250 hours of employment during the previous 12 months and inserting 90 days.
(3) Congressional employees Section 202(a)(2)(B) of the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1312(a)(2)(B)) is amended by striking 12 months and for at least 1,250 hours of employment during the previous 12 months and inserting 90 days.
by striking 50 or more employees and all that follows through the end of the clause and inserting 1 or more employees;
Section 2 would replace part of the Family and Medical Leave Act’s employee eligibility definition with a requirement that an employee have worked for the employer from whom leave is requested for at least 90 days.
Section 101(2) of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (29 U.S.C. 2611(2)) is amended— (1) in subparagraph (A), by striking employed— and all that follows through the end of the subparagraph and inserting employed for at least 90 days by the employer with respect to whom leave is requested under section 102.
The replacement exclusion from that employee definition would cover federal officers and employees covered by the specified separate federal leave provisions. The bill would also delete subparagraphs (C) and (D) and relabel subparagraph (E) as (C); their contents are not reproduced.
(2) in subparagraph (B), by striking does not include— and all that follows through the end of the subparagraph and inserting does not include any Federal officer or employee covered under subchapter V of chapter 63 of title 5, United States Code (as added by title II of this Act).; (3) by striking subparagraphs (C) and (D); and (4) by redesignating subparagraph (E) as subparagraph (C).
For federal employees, the bill would replace “12 months” with “90 days” in two specified provisions of title 5 of the United States Code.
(b) Federal employees (1) In general Title 5, United States Code, is amended— (A) in section 6381(1)(B), by striking 12 months and inserting 90 days; and (B) in section 6382(d)(2)(E), by striking 12 months and inserting 90 days.
For presidential employees, the bill would replace the specified requirement of 12 months and at least 1,250 hours of employment during the previous 12 months with 90 days.
(2) Presidential employees Section 412(a)(2)(B) of title 3, United States Code, is amended by striking 12 months and for at least 1,250 hours of employment during the previous 12 months and inserting 90 days.
For congressional employees, the bill would make the same replacement: 90 days instead of the specified requirement of 12 months and at least 1,250 hours of employment during the previous 12 months.
(3) Congressional employees Section 202(a)(2)(B) of the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1312(a)(2)(B)) is amended by striking 12 months and for at least 1,250 hours of employment during the previous 12 months and inserting 90 days.
Section 3 would change the employer definition in the Family and Medical Leave Act from “50 or more employees” to “1 or more employees.” It would also remove the rest of the amended clause, which is not reproduced in the source.
3. Expansion of employers subject to leave requirements Section 101(4)(A)(i) of such Act (29 U.S.C. 2611(4)(A)(i)) is amended by striking 50 or more employees and all that follows through the end of the clause and inserting 1 or more employees;
The supplied action snapshot, updated September 16, 2026, records introduction in the House on February 5, 2025, and referral that day to the Committees on Education and Workforce, House Administration, and Oversight and Government Reform.
Source snapshot updated 2026-09-16T08:09:10Z.
2025-02-05: Introduced in House
2025-02-05: Referred to the Committee on Education and Workforce, and in addition to the Committees on House Administration, and Oversight and Government Reform, 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.
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2025-02-05. 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 unrelated provision or policy change attached to appropriations was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion does not cover 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 does not establish the absence of earmarks in other versions or accompanying materials.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
None identified in the reviewed text
No materially narrow preferential benefit, special exemption or carve-out was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. Broad changes to leave eligibility do not alone constitute targeted benefits. This conclusion is limited to this version.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Sep 16, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI