To prohibit any entity that receives Federal funds from the COVID relief packages from mandating employees receive a COVID19 vaccine, and for other purposes.
- Bill Number
- H.R. 119
- Origin Chamber
- House
- Congress
- 119th Congress, Session 1
- Policy Area
- Health
- Status
- Introduced
- Latest Action
- 2025-01-03: Referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
- Last Updated
- 2025-03-04T19:53:50Z
AI-Generated Summary
Summary of H.R. 119: Prohibition on Vaccine Mandates for Entities Receiving COVID Relief Funds
Purpose
This bill aims to prevent organizations that received federal financial aid through COVID-19 relief laws from requiring their employees to get a COVID-19 vaccine. It enforces this by tying compliance to the continued use of those funds, promoting employee choice in vaccination decisions.
Key Provisions
- Funding Restriction: Any organization receiving federal funds from designated COVID-19 relief packages cannot require employees to receive a COVID-19 vaccine.
- Penalty for Violation: Organizations that impose such a mandate must repay all received funds from the COVID relief packages to the federal government.
- Definition of COVID Relief Package: The term covers six specific laws enacted between 2020 and 2021 to address the COVID-19 pandemic:
- CARES Act (Public Law 116-136)
- Coronavirus Preparedness and Response Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2020 (Public Law 116-123)
- Families First Coronavirus Response Act (Public Law 116-127)
- Paycheck Protection Program and Health Care Enhancement Act (Public Law 116-139)
- Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (Public Law 116-260)
- American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (Public Law 117-2)
Significant Changes to Existing Law
This legislation introduces a new condition on the use of federal COVID-19 relief funds, which were previously distributed without explicit restrictions on employee vaccine mandates. It does not amend the original relief laws but adds a post-distribution enforcement mechanism, potentially overriding any internal policies by fund recipients that conflict with this rule.
Potential Impacts
- On Government Agencies: Federal agencies overseeing fund distribution (e.g., Treasury or Health and Human Services) may need to monitor compliance and handle fund repayments, increasing administrative workload and enforcement costs.
- On Citizens and Employees: Workers at affected organizations gain protection from vaccine mandates tied to these funds, potentially preserving job options for those declining vaccination. However, it could limit public health measures in funded entities like schools or healthcare providers.
- On International Relations: Minimal direct impact, as the bill focuses on domestic fund recipients; it does not address global health policies or foreign aid.
Main Stakeholders Affected
- Fund Recipient Entities: Businesses, nonprofits, state/local governments, and other organizations that received COVID relief funds (e.g., small businesses via Paycheck Protection Program loans or larger institutions under the American Rescue Plan).
- Employees: Individuals working for these entities, who benefit from the ban on mandates but may face varying workplace health protocols.
- Federal Government: Taxpayers and agencies responsible for fund allocation and recovery, ensuring accountability in relief spending.
Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications
- Legal Implications: The bill creates enforceable conditions on federal spending, potentially leading to lawsuits over compliance or conflicts with other regulations (e.g., occupational safety rules from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration). Courts may interpret the scope of "mandate" and repayment processes.
- Constitutional Implications: It reinforces limits on federal funding strings by protecting individual choice, aligning with First Amendment (free speech/expression) and Fourteenth Amendment (due process) considerations in employment contexts, though it could be challenged if seen as interfering with public health authority.
- Political Implications: Reflects ongoing debates over government intervention in health decisions post-COVID, likely appealing to those prioritizing personal freedoms while drawing criticism from public health advocates concerned about disease control in funded sectors. As an introduced bill (referred to committees), its passage would signal shifts in congressional priorities on pandemic-era policies.
This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.
Sponsor
Recent Actions
- 2025-01-03: Referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
- 2025-01-03: Referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
- 2025-01-03: Introduced in House
- 2025-01-03: Introduced in House
Bill Versions
- To prohibit any entity that receives Federal funds from the COVID relief packages from mandating employees receive a COVID–19 vaccine, and for other purposes. — issued 2025-01-03 — PDF (2 pages)