The bill
EXPERTS Act of 2025
HR. 6145, 119th Congress β read as touching Pharmaceuticals.
Sponsored by
Rep. Jayapal, Pramila [D-WA-7]
ID: J000298
Follow the money
The bill
HR. 6145, 119th Congress β read as touching Pharmaceuticals.
The sponsor
Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.
The money
30 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.
Track this bill's progress through the legislative process
Latest Action
Invalid Date
π Current Status
Next: The bill will be reviewed by relevant committees who will debate, amend, and vote on it.
1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.
2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.
3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.
4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.
5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.
6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.
7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!
(sigh) Oh joy, another "reform" bill from the geniuses in Congress. Let's dissect this mess.
The EXPERTS Act of 2025 is a laughable attempt to address conflicts of interest in rulemaking. It's like trying to cure cancer with a Band-Aid. The bill requires disclosure of conflicts of interest, but only for submissions that include scientific, economic, or technical studies. How quaint.
New regulations being created or modified: Section 4 amends the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) to require interested persons to disclose funding sources and financial relationships when submitting studies or research related to proposed rules. Wow, what a bold move. It's not like industries have been gaming the system for decades by funding "independent" research that just so happens to support their interests.
Affected industries and sectors: Any industry that lobbies heavily in Washington will be impacted, but let's be real, they'll find ways to exploit this toothless legislation. The bill is too narrow in scope, only applying to submissions that include scientific, economic, or technical studies. What about all the other ways industries influence rulemaking?
Compliance requirements and timelines: There are no meaningful compliance requirements or timelines. Interested persons must disclose funding sources and financial relationships, but there's no penalty for non-compliance. It's like asking a toddler to promise not to touch the cookies.
Enforcement mechanisms and penalties: Ha! Don't make me laugh. The bill relies on agencies to police themselves, which is like trusting a fox to guard the henhouse. There are no meaningful enforcement mechanisms or penalties for non-compliance.
Economic and operational impacts: This bill will have zero impact on the revolving door between industries and government agencies. It won't stop industries from funding "research" that supports their interests. It's just a PR stunt to make Congress look like they're doing something about corruption.
In conclusion, this bill is a joke. It's a Band-Aid on a bullet wound. The real disease is the corrupting influence of money in politics, and this bill doesn't even scratch the surface. (shakes head) Next patient, please.
Rep. Jayapal, Pramila [D-WA-7]
Congress 119 β’ 2024 Election Cycle
No PAC contributions found
No committee contributions found
Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.
Showing 57 nodes and 30 connections (82 secondary connections hidden)
Total contributions: $130,260
Showing top 22 donors by contribution amount
Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 4 harmed.
Section 9(b)(1) requires agencies to prioritize adoption of rules that provide benefits to the public, including nonquantifiable benefits, which could disadvantage pharmaceutical companies if rules increase regulatory burdens or reduce profitability. Section 9(b)(2) requires consideration of distributional effects and social equity impact, which could lead to rules that limit drug pricing or increase access requirements, negatively impacting pharmaceutical revenues.
Section 9(b)(1) and (b)(2) require agencies to prioritize public benefits and consider distributional effects and social equity impact in rulemaking. This could lead to regulations that increase compliance costs, limit reimbursement, or impose additional reporting requirements on hospitals and health systems, potentially reducing their profitability or increasing operational burdens.
Section 9(b)(1) and (b)(2) require agencies to prioritize public benefits and consider distributional effects and social equity impact. This could result in rules that increase regulatory oversight of health insurers, limit premium increases, or expand coverage requirements, thereby reducing profitability or increasing costs for health insurance companies.
Section 9(b)(1) and (b)(2) require agencies to prioritize public benefits and consider distributional effects and social equity impact. This could lead to rules that increase staffing requirements, limit reimbursement rates, or impose additional quality reporting on long-term care facilities, increasing costs and reducing profitability for operators in this sector.
For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Rep. Jayapal, Pramila [D-WA-7])received from donors associated with that industry during the 2022βpresent cycles. Donations are not proof of intent β they are a record of who funds the people writing the law.