PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
Congressional Research Service
No official summary is available in the imported record yet.
People & committees
Rep. Baird, James R. [R-IN-4] · R–IN
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.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: May 9, 2025. 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.1516 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.1516 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.1516 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.1516 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 · 2025-02-24 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 proposal would require the Secretary of State to report to Congress on whether to keep the State Department’s Conflict and Stabilization Operations Bureau. The report would explain the bureau’s unique role, examine operating costs and possible costs and savings from closing it, and outline whether other bureaus would take over any functions or staff. It would require an assessment, rather than direct the bureau’s closure.
(a) In general The Secretary of State submit a report to the appropriate congressional committees no more than 180 days after the passage of this bill concerning the Conflict and Stabilization Operations Bureau (referred to as the Bureau).
(b) Composition The report shall consist of— (1) a bottom-line assessment as to whether the Bureau should be maintained; (2) an explanation of the unique function the Bureau serves; (3) an analysis of the costs associated with the function of the Bureau, including— (A) potential costs related to the dissolution of the Bureau; and (B) potential savings, both immediate and long-term, related to the dissolution of the Bureau; and (4) a plan detailing which, if any, functions or personnel of the Bureau would be absorbed by other Bureaus at the Department.
The Secretary of State would submit the report within 180 days after “passage of this bill,” the deadline trigger used in the text.
The Secretary of State submit a report to the appropriate congressional committees no more than 180 days after the passage of this bill concerning the Conflict and Stabilization Operations Bureau (referred to as the Bureau).
The report would go to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
The Secretary of State submit a report to the appropriate congressional committees
(c) Appropriate congressional committees The term appropriate congressional committees means the House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
The report would have to assess whether the bureau should be kept and explain what unique function it serves.
The report shall consist of— (1) a bottom-line assessment as to whether the Bureau should be maintained; (2) an explanation of the unique function the Bureau serves;
The report would analyze the bureau’s costs, including potential costs of closing it and potential immediate and long-term savings. The provision calls for analysis; it does not establish that closing the bureau would save money.
(3) an analysis of the costs associated with the function of the Bureau, including— (A) potential costs related to the dissolution of the Bureau; and (B) potential savings, both immediate and long-term, related to the dissolution of the Bureau;
The report would include a plan identifying which functions or staff, if any, other State Department bureaus would take over. The wording allows for a plan identifying no such transfers.
(4) a plan detailing which, if any, functions or personnel of the Bureau would be absorbed by other Bureaus at the Department.
The supplied actions snapshot, updated May 9, 2025, records introduction in the House and referral to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs on February 24, 2025.
Source snapshot updated 2025-05-09T19:03:48Z. 2025-02-24: Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. 2025-02-24: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2025-02-24. 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 was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish the contents of 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; accompanying earmark disclosures and committee materials were not supplied.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
None identified in the reviewed text
No materially narrow exemption, carve-out, or preferential benefit was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish the contents of other versions or accompanying materials.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: May 9, 2025. How PlainBill uses AI