H.R. 1114House bill · 119th CongressIntroducedInternational Affairs

L’Ouverture Economic Development Plan for Haiti Act of 2025

Introduced Feb 7, 2025Full text on congress.gov ↗

Latest action (Sep 2, 2026) — ASSUMING FIRST SPONSORSHIP - Mr. Jackson (IL) asked that he may hereafter be considered as the first sponsor of H.R. 1114, a bill originally introduced by Representative Cherfilus-McCormick, for the purpose of adding cosponsors and requesting reprintings pursuant to clause 7 of rule XII. Agreed to without objection.

What it does

not written yet

The Congressional Research Service writes the plain-English summary for every bill, usually a few weeks after it's introduced. This one doesn't have one yet. It will appear here when it does.

In the meantime the most reliable description is the bill's own official title, which is the heading above — written by its sponsor, and the only account of the bill that exists at this stage. The full text is on congress.gov ↗

We don't write our own summaries. Everything else on this site links back to a record you can check, and a description of a bill that came from us rather than from the bill would be the one thing here that didn't — on the page that asks you to take a position on it.

Discussion

10 comments

Sort

MidwestMechanicDemoPA-17voted Nay1d ago

I'd like to see the fiscal note before taking a position. The summary is silent on cost, which is normally the whole argument. It'll come down to what the agency does with it.

civicsnerdDemoGA-10voted Nay14h ago

The summary reads clearly enough, but the enforcement mechanism is doing all the work and it's the part with the least detail. Someone closer to this than me should say whether that's right.

NorthWoodsNinaDemoNY-127h ago

The reporting requirement *is* the guardrail. Once the numbers are public the politics change on their own.

nell.ferreiraDemoNC-6voted Yea1d ago

In favour. The transparency provisions alone justify it, and they're the hardest part to undo later. I'd rather see it fixed in committee than argued about on the floor.

gulfcoastgailDemoNJ-8voted Yea10h ago

The drafting is loose in places where loose drafting is expensive. Conference could fix it; conference could also make it worse. None of that is settled by the summary.

harborlightDemoCA-40voted Yea12h ago

Support, without enthusiasm. A narrow fix now beats a comprehensive one that never arrives. Whether that matters depends entirely on the implementation date.

hollow_porchDemoHI-1voted Nay1d ago

No from me. Pushing the cost to states without saying so is still an unfunded mandate. I'd rather see it fixed in committee than argued about on the floor.

nell.ferreiraDemoNC-6voted Yea1d ago

Honest question, not a trap: what would change your mind?

PlainsVoterDemoIL-7voted Nay12h ago

My hesitation is the absence of a sunset. Authorities that never expire never get re-examined either.

j_okonkwoDemoNC-14voted Yea1d ago

This is unglamorous plumbing, and unglamorous plumbing is usually what matters. Yes from me. It'll come down to what the agency does with it.

Your position on H.R. 1114No positions yet