PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce.
Congressional Research Service
No official summary is available in the imported record yet.
People & committees
Rep. Houchin, Erin [R-IN-9] · 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 Education and Workforce.
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: Dec 6, 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.2058 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.2058 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.2058 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.2058 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 · 2025-03-11 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 add a definition of “evidence-based” to federal workforce law and expand required State descriptions of workforce activities. Activities could qualify through studies showing statistically significant improvements, or through research or a positive evaluation supporting likely improvements, combined with ongoing examination of their effects. States would describe how far activities meet the definition and any strategies they would use to prioritize funding for qualifying programs. These are proposed changes, not evidence of enacted law.
Section 3 of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (29 U.S.C. 3102) is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph: (72) Evidence-based
(A) demonstrates a statistically significant effect on improving participant outcomes or other relevant outcomes
(B) (i) demonstrates a rationale based on high-quality research findings or positive evaluation that such activity, service, strategy, or intervention is likely to improve student outcomes or other relevant outcomes; and (ii) includes ongoing efforts to examine the effects of such activity, service, strategy, or intervention.
in subparagraph (C) by inserting the extent to which such activities are evidence-based, after of such activities,
(F) a description of any strategies the State will use to prioritize the funding of evidence-based programs through the funds available for statewide workforce development activities described in section 128(a).
The proposed definition would cover activities, services, strategies, interventions, and material content. One way to qualify would require a statistically significant improvement in participant or other relevant outcomes—a result meeting a statistical threshold for evidence of an effect. It would need support from at least one well-designed and well-implemented study: experimental research rated strong, quasi-experimental research rated moderate, or research on associations rated promising that statistically accounts for selection bias.
The term evidence-based, when used with respect to an activity, service, strategy, or intervention, or content of materials, means an activity, service, strategy, or intervention, or content of materials that— (A) demonstrates a statistically significant effect on improving participant outcomes or other relevant outcomes based on— (i) strong evidence from at least 1 well-designed and well-implemented experimental study; (ii) moderate evidence from at least 1 well-designed and well-implemented quasi-experimental study; or (iii) promising evidence from at least 1 well-designed and well-implemented correlational study with statistical controls for selection bias;
A separate way to qualify would require both a rationale based on high-quality research findings or a positive evaluation suggesting likely improvement, and ongoing efforts to examine effects. This alternative refers to student outcomes or other relevant outcomes; it does not expressly require the statistically significant result specified in the first route.
or (B) (i) demonstrates a rationale based on high-quality research findings or positive evaluation that such activity, service, strategy, or intervention is likely to improve student outcomes or other relevant outcomes; and (ii) includes ongoing efforts to examine the effects of such activity, service, strategy, or intervention.
The bill would add “the extent to which such activities are evidence-based” to an existing description requirement in section 102(b)(1)(C) of the workforce law. The surrounding existing provision is not reproduced, so the supplied text does not fully identify which activities that requirement covers.
Section 102(b)(1) of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (29 U.S.C. 3112(b)(1)) is amended— (1) in subparagraph (C) by inserting the extent to which such activities are evidence-based, after of such activities,
States would have to describe any strategies they will use to prioritize evidence-based programs with funds available for statewide workforce development activities under section 128(a). This wording requires a description of any strategies; it does not itself require States to adopt a funding preference or appropriate additional money.
(4) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph: (F) a description of any strategies the State will use to prioritize the funding of evidence-based programs through the funds available for statewide workforce development activities described in section 128(a).
The supplied official-actions snapshot, updated December 6, 2025, records introduction in the House and referral to the House Committee on Education and Workforce on March 11, 2025. That snapshot does not establish subsequent action or enactment.
Source snapshot updated 2025-12-06T06:38:41Z. 2025-03-11: Referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce. 2025-03-11: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2025-03-11. 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 is limited to that version and 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 is limited to that version; the bundle 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 carve-out, special exemption, or preferential exception 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: Dec 6, 2025. How PlainBill uses AI