Fitzgerald, Scott [R-WI-5]
Republican · WI · 22 bills sponsored
To amend section 1960(a) of title 18, United States Code.
# Summary of HR 7732 I cannot provide a complete summary of this bill because the legislative text itself is not included in the information provided. The bill summary only shows basic metadata: it's sponsored by Rep. Scott Fitzgerald (R-WI), is currently in committee, and would amend section 1960(a) of federal criminal law (Title 18). However, without seeing the actual proposed language changes, I cannot explain what specific changes the bill would make, who it would affect, or what the key provisions are. **To get the details you need**, I'd recommend checking Congress.gov (Congress.gov/bill/119/hr/7732), which provides the full bill text, sponsor statements, and any committee actions. This will show exactly what amendment is being proposed to the law.
Merger Agreement Approvals Clarity and Predictability Act
# Merger Agreement Approvals Clarity and Predictability Act Summary **What the Bill Would Do:** This bill would establish clearer rules and timelines for how federal agencies approve or reject merger agreements, particularly those involving banks and financial institutions. The legislation aims to reduce uncertainty in the merger approval process by requiring agencies like the FDIC to follow more predictable procedures and provide clearer explanations when making decisions about whether mergers can proceed. **Who It Affects and Key Provisions:** The bill primarily impacts companies seeking to merge, financial institutions, and the federal agencies that oversee these transactions. While the full text details aren't provided here, the bill's focus on "clarity and predictability" suggests it would likely establish specific decision timelines, require agencies to document their reasoning, and possibly involve congressional oversight of major merger decisions. This could affect any business pursuing a merger but would most directly impact the banking and financial sector. **Current Status:** HR 6570 is currently in committee, meaning it has not yet advanced to a full vote in the House of Representatives. The bill was introduced by Rep. Scott Fitzgerald (R-Wisconsin) in the 119th Congress and remains in the early stages of the legislative process.
Law-Enforcement Innovate to De-Escalate Act
# Law-Enforcement Innovate to De-Escalate Act Summary **What It Does:** This bill removes certain less-than-lethal weapons—like TASERs and similar devices—from federal gun regulations. Currently, these devices are regulated under the Gun Control Act, but the bill would exempt them. It also requires the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to decide whether a device qualifies as "less-than-lethal" within 90 days when asked. **Who It Affects:** Law enforcement agencies, manufacturers of non-lethal devices, and potentially civilians could be affected. The bill aims to make it easier for police to access de-escalation tools by reducing regulatory barriers, though it may also affect how these devices are distributed or used more broadly. **Key Provision:** The bill defines a "less-than-lethal projectile device" as one that fires projectiles at low velocity (under 500 feet per second), isn't designed to cause death or serious injury, and cannot be converted to use regular ammunition. Devices meeting these criteria would no longer be treated as firearms under federal law. **Current Status:** The bill has passed the House of Representatives and is currently awaiting action in the Senate.
To authorize the establishment of memorials to the Wisconsin infantry officers and enlisted men who fought in the Battle of Antietam and the Second Battle of Bull Run, and for other purposes.
# HR 7495 Summary **What the Bill Would Do** This bill would authorize the creation of memorials dedicated to Wisconsin soldiers who fought in two major Civil War battles: the Battle of Antietam (September 1862) and the Second Battle of Bull Run (August 1862). These memorials would honor the officers and enlisted men from Wisconsin who participated in these historically significant battles. The bill's phrase "and for other purposes" suggests it may include additional provisions beyond the memorials themselves, though specific details aren't provided in the basic bill information. **Who It Affects** The bill would primarily affect Wisconsin residents and Civil War history enthusiasts. It may also impact locations where these memorials would be erected—potentially battlefield sites in Maryland (Antietam) and Virginia (Bull Run), or Wisconsin communities. The bill doesn't appear to directly regulate or impose requirements on the general public. **Current Status** HR 7495 is currently in committee and has not yet been voted on by the full House. It was introduced by Representative Scott Fitzgerald, a Republican from Wisconsin's 5th Congressional District. The bill remains in the early stages of the legislative process and would need committee approval before advancing to a full House vote.
Combatting Money Laundering in Cyber Crime Act of 2025
# Combatting Money Laundering in Cyber Crime Act of 2025 - Summary **What the Bill Would Do:** This bill, introduced in the House, aims to address financial crimes related to cybercrime by targeting money laundering activities. While specific provisions aren't detailed in the available information, the bill's title suggests it would likely create new rules or enforcement mechanisms to track and prevent criminals from hiding money obtained through cyber attacks, hacking, ransomware, and other online crimes. **Who It Affects:** The bill would primarily impact financial institutions (banks and money transfer services), law enforcement agencies, and cybercriminals. It could also affect legitimate businesses and individuals by potentially requiring them to comply with new financial reporting or monitoring requirements designed to catch suspicious transactions. **Current Status:** As of now, the bill (HR 5877) is in committee, meaning it has been introduced but hasn't yet advanced to a full House vote. It was sponsored by Representative Scott Fitzgerald, a Wisconsin Republican. The bill has not yet become law and would need to pass through committee review, House approval, and Senate approval before reaching the President's desk.
Middle Class Home Tax Elimination Act
# Middle Class Home Tax Elimination Act (HR 7131) - Summary **What the Bill Would Do:** This bill, sponsored by Rep. Scott Fitzgerald (R-WI), aims to eliminate certain federal taxes related to homeownership for middle-class Americans. While specific details about which taxes would be eliminated aren't provided in the available information, the title suggests it would reduce or remove tax burdens on home purchases or ownership. The bill would primarily benefit homeowners and people looking to purchase homes by reducing their federal tax obligations. **Who It Affects and Current Status:** The legislation would mainly affect middle-class homebuyers and homeowners across the United States. Currently, the bill is in the committee review stage, meaning it has been introduced but hasn't yet advanced to a full vote in the House of Representatives. At this stage, the bill is still being studied and debated by the relevant House committees before any action could be taken. **Note:** For complete details about specific provisions and tax implications, you would need to review the full bill text, as the summary information available doesn't specify which particular home-related taxes would be affected.
Keeping Violent Offenders Off Our Streets Act
# Keeping Violent Offenders Off Our Streets Act (HR 6260) **What the Bill Would Do:** This bill aims to keep individuals convicted of violent crimes in prison longer by modifying sentencing and release policies. While specific provisions aren't detailed in the available information, bills with this title typically focus on limiting early release programs, restricting parole eligibility, or enhancing sentences for violent offenders. The exact mechanisms would depend on the bill's detailed language. **Who It Affects:** The bill would primarily affect individuals convicted of violent crimes, the criminal justice system, and potentially law enforcement and public safety agencies. It could also impact families of crime victims and incarcerated individuals, as well as states that manage their own prison systems. **Current Status:** The bill is currently in committee (HR 6260), meaning it has been introduced but has not yet been voted on by the full House of Representatives. For the most current details about what this bill specifically proposes, you would need to review the full legislative text on Congress.gov, as the summary information available is limited.
NDO Fairness Act
# NDO Fairness Act Summary **What the bill does:** The NDO Fairness Act would make it harder for the government to secretly obtain people's emails and other electronic communications from tech companies and internet service providers. Currently, when law enforcement gets a warrant to access someone's emails or account information, they can also get a court order (called a nondisclosure order, or NDO) that prevents the company from telling the person their data was requested. This bill would raise the legal standard the government must meet to obtain or renew these secrecy orders, making it tougher for authorities to keep investigations hidden. **Who it affects:** This legislation would impact law enforcement agencies (FBI, local police, etc.), tech companies and internet service providers, and the general public. Individuals could potentially be notified sooner when the government seeks their private communications, while law enforcement may face more restrictions in keeping investigations confidential during sensitive stages. **Current status:** The bill was introduced by Rep. Scott Fitzgerald (R-Wisconsin) in the 119th Congress and is currently in committee, meaning it has not yet been debated or voted on by the full House. The bill touches on fundamental privacy and law enforcement concerns, which typically generate debate from both privacy advocates and those concerned with investigation effectiveness.
Bank Competition Modernization Act
# Bank Competition Modernization Act Summary **What the Bill Would Do** The Bank Competition Modernization Act (HR 5262) would modify federal regulations governing banks and financial institutions to promote competition in the banking sector. Based on its subject areas, the bill likely addresses capital requirements, business record-keeping standards, and antitrust rules that affect how banks operate and compete with each other. The specific changes would impact banking regulations that have been in place since earlier financial reforms. **Who It Affects** This bill would primarily affect banks and financial institutions of various sizes, their customers who hold accounts and deposits, and potentially other businesses that compete in financial services. Consumers could be affected if the regulatory changes influence fees, account options, or service availability. **Current Status** HR 5262 is currently in committee, meaning it has been introduced but has not yet advanced to a full House vote. The bill was sponsored by Rep. Scott Fitzgerald (R-WI) and remains in the early stages of the legislative process. Without the full bill text being publicly detailed, the specific provisions cannot be outlined in greater detail, but the subject classifications suggest it focuses on modernizing how competition and banking regulations interact.
STUDENT Act
# STUDENT Act Summary **What the Bill Would Do:** The STUDENT Act (Stopping Teachers Unions from Damaging Education Needs Today Act) would change how the National Education Association (the largest teachers union in the U.S.) collects membership dues from public employees. If passed, the union would need to get explicit, written consent from each member before collecting dues—including through payroll deduction. The bill also requires unions to process membership cancellation requests quickly and sets new operational rules for the organization. **Who It Affects:** This bill primarily affects teachers and other public employees who are members of the National Education Association or its state and local chapters, as well as the union itself. Teachers would gain the ability to more easily opt out of membership and dues payment, while the union's funding model would change significantly. **Key Provisions:** Members must be clearly informed of their right to refuse membership, must actively consent to joining and paying dues (rather than automatically enrolling), and cannot have dues taken through payroll deduction without explicit authorization. The union must quickly process requests to cancel membership. **Current Status:** The bill was introduced in the 119th Congress by Rep. Scott Fitzgerald (R-Wisconsin) and is currently in committee, meaning it has not yet been voted on by the full House of Representatives.
PROTECT USA Act of 2025
# PROTECT USA Act of 2025 Summary I appreciate your request, but I'm unable to provide a substantive summary of this bill. The information available shows only basic metadata: it's a House bill (HR 4279) sponsored by Rep. Scott Fitzgerald of Wisconsin, currently in committee, but the actual text and specific provisions aren't included in what you've provided. To give you an accurate summary of what the bill would do, who it affects, and its key provisions, I would need access to the bill's full text or detailed legislative summary. I'd recommend checking: - **Congress.gov** (congress.gov) - Search HR 4279 for the complete bill text and summary - **Your representative's website** - Often includes explanations of bills they sponsor If you can share the bill's text or a more detailed summary, I'd be happy to explain it in plain language.
Protect U.S. Companies from Foreign Regulatory Taxation Act
# Summary of HR 4278: Protect U.S. Companies from Foreign Regulatory Taxation Act **What the Bill Does:** This bill, currently under review in committee, aims to protect American companies from being taxed by foreign governments on regulatory compliance costs. Specifically, it would prevent foreign countries from imposing taxes or fees on U.S. businesses based on expenses those companies incur to meet regulatory requirements (such as safety, environmental, or labor standards). The bill appears designed to address situations where foreign nations tax American firms for costs associated with following regulations. **Who It Affects:** The primary beneficiaries would be U.S. companies operating internationally or conducting business with foreign entities. Foreign governments and their tax authorities would be limited in their ability to impose certain types of taxes on American businesses. Consumers and broader economic impacts would depend on how companies adjust their operations in response. **Current Status:** The bill is in the early stages of the legislative process, currently assigned to a House committee for review. No action has been taken yet, meaning it has not advanced to a vote. The full text of specific provisions is not detailed in the available information, so the precise mechanisms and scope of the protections remain unclear.
Expanding Access to Lending Options Act
# Expanding Access to Lending Options Act Summary **What the Bill Would Do** HR 4167 aims to expand lending options available to consumers and small businesses, though specific details about how it would accomplish this are not publicly available yet. Based on the bill's title, it would likely make it easier for people and companies to access different types of loans or credit products by potentially removing regulatory barriers or changing lending rules. **Who It Affects** This bill would primarily impact consumers seeking personal loans, small business owners looking for financing, and potentially the financial institutions and lenders that provide these products. The changes could affect credit availability, interest rates, or the types of loans people can access. **Current Status** As of now, HR 4167 is in committee, meaning it has been introduced but has not yet been debated or voted on by the full House of Representatives. The bill was sponsored by Rep. Scott Fitzgerald (R-WI). Without additional details on the bill's specific provisions, it's difficult to assess the full scope of its potential impacts. Interested parties can track its progress through Congress.gov for updates.
HUMPS Act of 2025
# HUMPS Act of 2025 Summary I don't have access to the specific text of HR 3379 (HUMPS Act of 2025), so I cannot provide you with an accurate summary of what this bill actually does. While I can see it's a financial regulation bill currently in committee, I want to avoid guessing at its provisions or consequences. **To get accurate information, I'd recommend:** - Visiting Congress.gov and searching "HR 3379" to read the full bill text - Checking the bill summary and status updates on that same site - Looking at analyses from nonpartisan sources like the Congressional Research Service This ensures you get factual details about what the bill proposes, who it affects, and its current status rather than my speculation.
Stopping Proxy Advisor Racketeering Act
# Stopping Proxy Advisor Racketeering Act (HR 4098) Summary **What the Bill Would Do:** This bill would regulate proxy advisory firms—companies that provide voting recommendations to shareholders on corporate matters. The bill aims to increase transparency and accountability for these firms by requiring them to disclose potential conflicts of interest, provide advance notice of their recommendations to companies, and submit to regulatory oversight by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). **Who It Affects:** The legislation primarily impacts proxy advisory firms (the two largest being Institutional Shareholder Services and Glass Lewis), institutional investors who rely on their recommendations, and publicly traded companies subject to shareholder votes. Large pension funds and mutual funds that use proxy advisors' guidance would also be affected. **Current Status:** The bill remains in committee as of now, meaning it has not advanced to a full House vote. No significant legislative action has occurred. The bill reflects ongoing debate between those who view proxy advisors as influential players needing more regulation and those concerned that stricter rules could increase costs and limit shareholder input in corporate governance.
Separation of Powers Restoration Act of 2025
# Separation of Powers Restoration Act of 2025 (HR 1605) Summary **What the Bill Would Do** This bill would change how courts review decisions made by federal agencies (like the EPA, FDA, or Social Security Administration). Currently, courts often give agencies some deference—meaning they accept the agency's interpretation of laws and rules unless it's clearly unreasonable. This bill would require courts to make their own independent decisions about what laws and agency rules mean, without automatically deferring to the agency's interpretation. Essentially, it shifts more power from agencies to courts. **Who It Affects** This bill would impact anyone who challenges a government agency's decision in court—including businesses fighting regulations, individuals appealing benefit denials, and environmental groups challenging permits. It would also affect federal agencies themselves, which would face stricter judicial scrutiny of their decisions. The change could make it easier to overturn agency actions through court challenges. **Current Status** The bill was introduced by Rep. Scott Fitzgerald (R-WI) and is currently in committee, meaning it has not yet been debated or voted on by the full House. It represents a significant shift in constitutional interpretation regarding the separation of powers between the executive branch (agencies) and judicial branch (courts).
Insurance Data Protection Act
# Insurance Data Protection Act (HR 3437) - Summary **What the Bill Does:** The Insurance Data Protection Act would establish federal standards for how insurance companies protect customer personal information and handle data breaches. If passed, it would create rules requiring insurers to safeguard sensitive data like Social Security numbers, financial information, and health records, and would likely mandate that companies notify customers quickly if their data is compromised. **Who It Affects:** This bill would impact insurance companies (which would need to comply with new security requirements) and insurance customers (who would receive stronger privacy protections and faster breach notifications). It could also affect insurance regulators and state governments, depending on how the federal rules interact with existing state insurance laws. **Current Status:** The bill is currently in committee, meaning it's in the early stages of the legislative process and hasn't yet been voted on by the full House of Representatives. It was introduced by Representative Scott Fitzgerald (R-WI) in the 119th Congress. *Note: Specific provisions of this bill are not detailed in the available information. For precise details on requirements and exemptions, you would need to review the full bill text.*
Restoring Court Authority Over Litigation Act of 2025
# Restoring Court Authority Over Litigation Act of 2025 (HR 3213) **What the Bill Would Do** This bill aims to restore judicial authority over litigation matters. Based on its title, it appears designed to address concerns that courts have lost decision-making power over legal cases, though specific provisions aren't detailed in the available information. The bill would likely affect how judges oversee lawsuits and legal proceedings. **Who It Affects** The legislation would impact the judicial system broadly, potentially affecting judges, lawyers, plaintiffs, defendants, and anyone involved in civil litigation. It may also influence federal agencies or other entities that interact with the court system. **Current Status** HR 3213 is currently in committee, meaning it hasn't yet advanced to a floor vote in the House of Representatives. It was introduced by Rep. Scott Fitzgerald (R-Wisconsin) in the 119th Congress. To get a clearer picture of the bill's specific provisions and likely effects, you would need to review the full legislative text on Congress.gov, as the summary information available here doesn't provide those details.
Making the CFPB Accountable to Small Businesses Act of 2025
# Making the CFPB Accountable to Small Businesses Act of 2025 - Summary **What the Bill Would Do** This bill aims to increase oversight of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), a federal agency that regulates financial companies and protects consumers. The bill's stated goal is to make the CFPB more accountable to small businesses. While the full details aren't publicly available yet, bills with this title typically propose measures such as requiring the agency to consider small business impacts before issuing new rules, creating reporting requirements, or establishing advisory processes that include small business input. **Who It Affects** The bill would primarily affect small businesses in the financial services sector and related industries, as well as the CFPB itself. It could also indirectly impact consumers if it changes how the agency operates or writes financial regulations. **Current Status** The bill was introduced in the 119th Congress by Republican Representative Scott Fitzgerald of Wisconsin. It is currently in committee, meaning it hasn't yet been debated or voted on by the full House of Representatives. At this stage, the bill is still in early proceedings and has not been enacted into law.
Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Federal Trade Commission relating to "Premerger Notification; Reporting and Waiting Period Requirements".
# Summary of HJRES 39 **What the Bill Would Do:** This bill is a "disapproval resolution" that would reject a new Federal Trade Commission (FTC) rule about merger notifications. If passed, it would block the FTC's updated requirements for companies planning to merge or acquire other companies. Specifically, the rule affects the paperwork and waiting periods companies must follow when notifying the government about major business combinations. **Who It Affects:** The bill primarily affects large corporations and businesses planning mergers or acquisitions. It could also impact the FTC's ability to review and potentially challenge deals it views as anti-competitive. Consumers might be indirectly affected if easier merger approval affects market competition and pricing. **Current Status:** The bill was introduced by Rep. Scott Fitzgerald (R-WI) and is currently in committee, meaning it has not yet been voted on by the full House. Congress can use disapproval resolutions to override agency rules through a fast-track process, though the bill would still need Senate approval and the President's signature to become law.
Stopping Overdoses of Fentanyl Analogues Act
# Plain Language Summary: Stopping Overdoses of Fentanyl Analogues Act **What the Bill Does:** This bill would permanently classify fentanyl-related substances as Schedule I controlled drugs—the most restrictive category. Currently, these substances are temporarily classified this way under an order that expires on March 31, 2025. If passed, the bill would make this classification permanent, meaning it would no longer need to be renewed and these drugs would face the same legal restrictions as other Schedule I substances like heroin. **Who It Affects and Key Provisions:** The bill primarily affects law enforcement, drug manufacturers, and individuals involved in fentanyl distribution or possession. It subjects violators to federal criminal penalties for manufacturing, selling, or possessing fentanyl analogs (synthetic variations of fentanyl). The bill aims to address the opioid crisis by closing a regulatory loophole—currently, chemists can sometimes create slight chemical variations of fentanyl that technically aren't covered by existing laws. Making the classification permanent prevents this workaround and ensures consistent enforcement. **Current Status:** The bill is currently in committee, meaning it has been introduced but hasn't yet been debated or voted on by the full House. It was sponsored by Representative Scott Fitzgerald (R-Wisconsin).
Interstate Commerce Simplification Act of 2025
# Interstate Commerce Simplification Act of 2025 - Summary **What the bill would do:** This bill would change federal tax rules about when states can tax out-of-state businesses. Currently, states cannot tax the net income of companies that only solicit orders within the state (like taking customer orders) if those orders are fulfilled from outside the state. This bill would expand what counts as "solicitation" to include business activities that serve purposes beyond just taking orders—essentially giving states more authority to tax out-of-state sellers who do more than just take orders in their state. **Who it affects:** Out-of-state companies that do business in multiple states would be most affected, particularly e-commerce businesses, mail-order companies, and other interstate retailers. The bill could result in these businesses owing state income taxes in states where they currently don't. Consumers might potentially see indirect effects depending on how businesses respond to new tax obligations. **Current status:** The bill was introduced by Rep. Scott Fitzgerald (R-Wisconsin) in the 119th Congress and is currently in committee, meaning it has not yet been debated or voted on by the full House of Representatives.