PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Feb 5, 2025
Ensuring Accountability and Dignity in Government Contracting Act of 2025
This bill expands executive agency requirements to counter human trafficking connected to recipients of federal contracts, grants, or cooperative agreements.
Federal law currently prohibits an executive agency from entering into a grant, contract, or cooperative agreement if the estimated value of the services to be performed outside the United States exceeds $500,000 unless a designated representative of the recipient certifies that the recipient has taken certain actions, including implementing a plan to prevent human trafficking.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
This bill requires that the recipient provide a copy of such plan to the contracting or grant office at the time of certification.
The designated representative of the recipient must report to the contracting or grant office if the recipient or the recipient's subcontractor, subgrantee, or agent engages in trafficking activities. The report must include the circumstances surrounding such activities and any remedial actions taken. The agency's office of the inspector general must conduct an investigation of the reported activities and remedial actions and must also notify the agency head office and the agency suspension and debarment office if an investigation was not completed because the recipient acknowledged the activity and took appropriate remedial action.
Additionally, the bill specifies that (1) the recipient's failure to take appropriate remedial action constitutes grounds for imposing certain penalties, and (2) the agency must suspend grant, contract, or cooperative agreement payments to the recipient until the recipient takes appropriate remedial action (under current law, suspending payments is optional).
People & committees
Rep. Valadao, David G. [R-CA-22] · R–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
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: Jan 26, 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.1036 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.1036 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.1036 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.1036 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.
This bill would change anti-trafficking oversight of federal contracts, grants, and cooperative agreements. It would require recipients’ designated representatives to report certain prohibited activities they determine occurred, require inspector general investigations, and amend enforcement provisions. It would also require a report to Congress on possible further oversight changes. These are proposals in the supplied introduced text.
the representative shall promptly submit to the relevant contracting or grant officer a report that describes the circumstances relating to such activities and the remedial actions taken to address such activities.
the Inspector General shall conduct an investigation of the activities and remedial actions described in the report.
suspend payments under the grant, contract, or cooperative agreement until the recipient has taken appropriate remedial action,
the Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall submit to Congress a report on the feasibility of—
Section 1 would name the bill the Ensuring Accountability and Dignity in Government Contracting Act of 2025.
This Act may be cited as the Ensuring Accountability and Dignity in Government Contracting Act of 2025.
Section 2(a), concerning compliance plans and certification, would replace “upon request” in existing section 1703(c) with “at the time each certification required under subsection (a) is made and upon request”. The underlying requirement is not reproduced in the supplied sources, so its full scope cannot be determined here.
(a) Compliance plan and certification requirement Section 1703 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (22 U.S.C. 7104a) is amended— (1) in subsection (c), by striking upon request and inserting at the time each certification required under subsection (a) is made and upon request
After an award or agreement, a recipient’s designated representative would have to report promptly if they determine that the recipient, a subcontractor, a subgrantee, or an agent of any of them engaged in activities covered by the referenced anti-trafficking law during the agreement’s term. The report would go to the relevant contracting or grant officer and describe the circumstances and remedial actions taken. The referenced law’s list of covered activities is not supplied.
If, after a grant, contract, or cooperative agreement is provided or entered into, the duly designated representative of the recipient determines that the recipient, subcontractor or subgrantee, or agent of the recipient or of a subcontractor or subgrantee has engaged in any of the activities described in section 106(g) of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 (22 U.S.C. 7104(g)) during the term of the grant, contract, or cooperative agreement, the representative shall promptly submit to the relevant contracting or grant officer a report that describes the circumstances relating to such activities and the remedial actions taken to address such activities.
An inspector general would have to investigate the activities and remedial actions described in a recipient representative’s incident report.
In the event that a duly designated representative of the recipient submits a report described in section 1703(e), the Inspector General shall conduct an investigation of the activities and remedial actions described in the report.
If an inspector general’s reason for not completing an investigation includes the recipient’s acknowledgment of the activity and corrective action the inspector general considers appropriate, the inspector general would have to notify the awarding agency’s head and the relevant agency suspension and debarment official.
If the rationale for not completing an investigation includes that a recipient acknowledged the activity occurred and has, according to the Inspector General, taken appropriate corrective action to remediate it, the Inspector General shall notify the head of the executive agency that awarded the contract, grant, or cooperative agreement and the relevant agency suspension and debarment official.
Section 2(b) would add failure to take appropriate corrective action to existing enforcement language and insert language about suspending payments until appropriate remedial action is taken. It would also delete existing subparagraph (C) and renumber the following subparagraphs. The surrounding statute and deleted provision are not supplied, so the complete enforcement change cannot be determined from this text alone.
(3) in subsection (c)(1)— (A) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A)— (i) by striking , as amended by section 1702, and inserting or failed to take appropriate corrective action to address such activities,; and (ii) by inserting , suspend payments under the grant, contract, or cooperative agreement until the recipient has taken appropriate remedial action, after debarment official; (B) by striking subparagraph (C); and (C) by redesignating subparagraphs (D), (E), and (F) as subparagraphs (C), (D), and (E), respectively.
Within 18 months after enactment, the Office of Management and Budget director would have to report to Congress on the feasibility of three further changes. This section would require a feasibility report; it would not itself impose the requirements being studied.
Not later than 18 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall submit to Congress a report on the feasibility of—
(1) amending section 1703
(2) streamlining agency reporting
(3) requiring Federal agencies
The report would examine requiring contracting officials to assess compliance of contractors’ anti-trafficking plans for product and service categories and geographic locations that federal agencies identify as higher risk for human trafficking. The proposal expressly includes officials at Homeland Security, Defense, State, and the United States Agency for International Development.
to require contracting officials, including those at the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Defense, the Department of State, and the United States Agency for International Development, to assess compliance of contractor anti-trafficking plans for product and service categories and geographic locations that Federal agencies identify as higher risk for human trafficking
The report would also examine streamlining agency reporting required by federal trafficking victims protection laws while meeting Congress’s information needs, and requiring agencies to track and report whether contracting personnel have taken training explaining their anti-trafficking responsibilities in government purchasing.
(2) streamlining agency reporting required by Federal trafficking victims protection laws to promote efficiency while meeting congressional information needs
(3) requiring Federal agencies, such as the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Defense, the Department of State, and the United States Agency for International Development, to track and report whether contracting personnel have taken anti-trafficking acquisition training explaining their responsibilities to combat human trafficking.
The supplied official-actions snapshot, updated January 26, 2026, records introduction in the House and referral to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs on February 5, 2025.
Source snapshot updated 2026-01-26T20:22:35Z. 2025-02-05: Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. 2025-02-05: Introduced in House
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 attachment to appropriations was identified after reviewing the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials or document an amendment’s attachment history.
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 after reviewing the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version; it does not establish formal earmark status or absence 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 carve-out, special exemption, preferential treatment, or exception warranting a finding was identified after reviewing 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: Jan 26, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI