PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Congressional Research Service
No official summary is available in the imported record yet.
People & committees
Rep. Moolenaar, John R. [R-MI-2] · R–MI
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 the Judiciary.
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: Apr 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.1624 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.1624 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.1624 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.1624 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 · 2025-02-26 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 Supporting Farm Operations Act of 2025 would freeze a required wage rate for workers admitted under the H–2A immigration category at each state's December 31, 2023 level through December 31, 2026. The bill calls this the “adverse effect wage rate.” For covered workers who may perform multiple tasks, it would require the Secretary of Labor to determine the required wage by evaluating their primary duties.
This Act may be cited as the Supporting Farm Operations Act of 2025.
The Secretary of Labor shall ensure that the adverse effect wage rate required to be paid under section 655.1308 of title 20, Code of Federal Regulations, to nonimmigrants admitted under section 101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(a)), that was in effect in a State on December 31, 2023, remains the adverse effect wage rate for such employees in that State through December 31, 2026.
For the purposes of determining the wage required to be paid referred to in section 2, the Secretary of Labor shall utilize a primary duties evaluation for such employees who may be performing more than one duty or task.
Section 2 would require the Secretary of Labor to preserve each state's December 31, 2023 adverse effect wage rate for the covered workers through December 31, 2026. It specifies a state-based reference rate, rather than a single nationwide dollar amount.
The Secretary of Labor shall ensure that the adverse effect wage rate required to be paid under section 655.1308 of title 20, Code of Federal Regulations, to nonimmigrants admitted under section 101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(a)), that was in effect in a State on December 31, 2023, remains the adverse effect wage rate for such employees in that State through December 31, 2026.
Section 3 would require a primary-duties evaluation—an assessment of a worker's main duties—when determining the wage referenced in section 2 for covered workers who may perform more than one duty or task.
For the purposes of determining the wage required to be paid referred to in section 2, the Secretary of Labor shall utilize a primary duties evaluation for such employees who may be performing more than one duty or task.
The supplied actions snapshot, updated April 9, 2025, records introduction in the House and referral to the House Committee on the Judiciary on February 26, 2025.
Source snapshot updated 2025-04-09T08:06:59Z. 2025-02-26: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. 2025-02-26: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2025-02-26. 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 establish absence 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 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 carve-out, special exemption, or preferential exception beyond the main policy's intended coverage was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Apr 9, 2025. How PlainBill uses AI