Overview

Title

To extend the financial disclosure requirements of subchapter I of chapter 131 of title 5, United States Code, to certain special Government employees, and for other purposes.

ELI5 AI

H.R. 1321 is a rule that says certain special helpers for the government must tell about their money and business ties before they can start working on government tasks, to make sure they are being honest and fair.

Summary AI

H. R. 1321 aims to expand financial disclosure requirements to certain special government employees. These employees, who may own or run companies that have contracts with the federal government, must follow the same financial disclosure rules as other government officials. Until their financial reports are reviewed and certified by the Office of Government Ethics, they are not allowed to perform their government-related duties. The bill is known as the “Ending DOGE Conflicts Act.”

Published

2025-02-13
Congress: 119
Session: 1
Chamber: HOUSE
Status: Introduced in House
Date: 2025-02-13
Package ID: BILLS-119hr1321ih

Bill Statistics

Size

Sections:
2
Words:
593
Pages:
3
Sentences:
9

Language

Nouns: 238
Verbs: 21
Adjectives: 25
Adverbs: 0
Numbers: 17
Entities: 80

Complexity

Average Token Length:
4.06
Average Sentence Length:
65.89
Token Entropy:
4.50
Readability (ARI):
33.94

AnalysisAI

Overview of the Bill

The bill titled "Ending DOGE Conflicts Act" aims to enhance transparency within the U.S. government by extending financial disclosure requirements to certain special Government employees. These individuals, specifically, are those in significant roles within companies that have contracts with the Federal Government. The proposed legislation mandates these employees to submit detailed financial reports for review by the Office of Government Ethics before engaging in any federal duties.

Key Issues

One major concern with the bill is the unclear definition of "special Government employee." While it references existing U.S. Code, the absence of an explicit definition in Section 2 might lead to confusion over who precisely falls under these new requirements. Providing clarity on this term upfront is essential for both the individuals and entities involved to ensure strict adherence to the law.

The bill also enforces an interim prohibition, restricting these employees from performing any federal duties until their financial disclosures are reviewed and certified. This provision, while designed to ensure accountability, could introduce delays, adversely affecting the efficiency of government operations. Another potential issue is that the bill lacks a specific timeline for the review and certification process, which could exacerbate these delays and lead to operational inefficiencies.

Further, the roles and responsibilities assigned to the Director of the Office of Government Ethics in this review process could benefit from more detailed elaboration. Doing so would provide clarity and prevent possible operational and bureaucratic confusion.

Additionally, the term "initial report" in the bill needs a clear definition to guide the affected employees on what is expected and prevent any unnecessary legal ambiguities.

Potential Public Impact

The broader impact of the bill on the public is likely to be seen in terms of enhanced transparency and trust in federal operations. By holding these special Government employees accountable through financial disclosures, the bill aims to prevent conflicts of interest, thereby promoting fairness and integrity in government dealings.

However, the restriction placed on these employees from performing their duties until their disclosures are approved could disrupt federal operations in the short term. This could indirectly affect public services, especially if vital roles remain unfulfilled during the verification process. Therefore, the efficiency of public services might temporarily suffer until the Office of Government Ethics has processed these reports.

Impact on Specific Stakeholders

For special Government employees, the bill presents new compliance obligations, requiring them to prepare and submit detailed financial disclosures. While this promotes ethics and accountability, it also places an administrative burden on these individuals, particularly for those unaware of or unprepared for these new requirements.

Contracted companies with the Federal Government may also face disruptions, especially if key personnel are unable to fulfill their roles pending disclosure approval. This could lead to delays in service delivery and financial implications for the companies involved.

Finally, the Office of Government Ethics will face increased workloads due to the additional volume of financial reports to review and certify. This increased burden may require additional resources or staffing to process these reports efficiently and mitigate potential backlogs, ensuring that the new requirements do not bottleneck government operations.

In summary, while the bill seeks to improve ethical standards in government, its implementation requires careful oversight to manage its operational impacts effectively. Policymakers and concerned entities should address these issues to ensure smooth integration of the bill's provisions into existing government protocols.

Issues

  • The term 'special Government employee' ought to be clearly defined within Section 2 or reference should be made to the existing definition to avoid ambiguity and ensure proper application of the bill's provisions. This is crucial for understanding who is affected by this law and ensuring compliance, which is significant for both ethical and legal reasons.

  • The interim prohibition in subsection (c) could be seen as overly restrictive since it prevents special Government employees from performing any official duties until compliance is verified. This delay could hinder government operations, impacting efficiency and the government's ability to function effectively.

  • Subsection (b) should specify a timeline for reviewing and certifying reports to ensure timely compliance. Without a set timeline, there could be unnecessary delays, which may cause operational inefficiencies within government agencies and could lead to financial and operational complications.

  • The roles and responsibilities of the Director of the Office of Government Ethics in reviewing and certifying reports, as mentioned in Section 2, could be further elaborated to clarify expectations and avoid potential confusion. This clarity can help in maintaining the integrity and transparency of the ethical oversight process.

  • The term 'initial report' in subsection (c) is not clearly defined and could lead to confusion about what needs to be submitted. Clearly defining what this entails is important for legal clarity and to ensure compliance with the financial disclosure requirements.

Sections

Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.

1. Short title Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

The first section of this act gives it the official short title, allowing it to be referred to as the "Ending DOGE Conflicts Act."

2. Requirements for, and prohibitions on, certain special Government employees Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

Upon enactment of this law, special Government employees who hold significant positions in companies that have Federal contracts must follow strict financial disclosure rules. They must submit reports to the Office of Government Ethics for review, and cannot perform any official duties until their report is approved.