Congressional Record

22:10Chair (NoahC500; Virginia)The House will now proceed to the consideration of Group Badges Act (Amendment 1) 2026.

Explanatory notes: This bill aims to amend the Group Badges Act to restrict Unemployed Access Badges from sitting at White House employee work stations. This bill was lobbied by T-im and xclebl, and sponsored by cavemanq.

:13kevincool@ (Texas)This bill is no longer needed as the Executive Office of the President has, through room regulations, set by the Code of Conduct Act, set a policy that VIPs, allies, etc., have to be in a room, and can't sit on FTF. So I won't support this bill.

:15Coolvimto (Virgin Islands)As my colleague from Texas said, this rule has already been done. Realistically there is not much to say after that.

:16ChairI would like to note, primary legislation is much permanent than regulations. The next administration would easily be able to change such a rule much quicker.

:17Vindiciae (Washington)I would like to argue in favor of the bill for the reasons stated previously by yourself. Should it be that the redundancy of the bill be its only reason for dismissal? I'd argue that the precedence of legislative passage would hold that te bill should be in place regardless of changing administrations (and Executive Office of the President). Therefore, passage of this bill would establish permanence of this most important bill.

:19kevincool@Sure, it can go through the whole process and become law, but, it would most likely be struck down by the Supreme Court. Since, in its current form, it doesn't comply with the common frameworks, and conflicts with the Code of Conduct Act 2025 (which gives EOP the authority to set HQ regulations.

:20VindiciaeI would like to withdraw my previous comment, in regards to the statement made by the representative from Texas, in that I agree that the Supreme Court may find the bill conflicts in its current form with the Code of Conduct Act. I therefore hold that the bill should be amended rather than struck down, as the permanence of legislation still superceds that of executive action.

:21ChairI welcome motions for amendment, but perhaps that would be better done on Discord.

:22kevincool@[Motion made, and question put, and agreed to, that this House skips to voting.]

:24Question put, that this House has considered Group Badges Act (Amendment 1) 2026 at stage 2.

:25kevincool@[On a point of order.] Structure—You didn't mention abstain as an option, which is an option according to the standing orders.

I withdraw the point of order so you can proceed.

:26ChairOverruled anyways, it's not in breach of part 2 or 3 of the standing orders.

:27[Question thus negatived.]

22:28ChairThe House will now proceed to the consideration of Employment Act (Amendment 4) 2026.

Explanatory notes: This bill aims to restrict employees who are on an approved Leave of Absence from working at the White House. It is a misuse of the Leave of Absence protocol. If you are available for work you should be rescinding your request. Sponsored by cavemanq.

:31VendiciaeI would like to voice my support of this bill. I believe it should be proper protocol that leaves of absence be rescinded before returning to work. I believe failure to implement this bill could lead to both confusion and abuse of the LOA system, and I would strongly urge members of the House to consider the ramifications of such results should it not pass.

:33CoolvimtoThis bill has its pros and cons.

This bill makes sure that people are not skimping out on work by saying they are on LOA, but then coming on and trying to get money (whilst claiming LOA). This bill also helps with making sure that people are claiming to be on leave.

The cons of this bill are that the majority of the time real life takes over our lives. Many of us will be busy with life, exams, etc. So there are pros and cons.

I personally believe tht if you are truly on leave you should make sure that you do not come on Habbo, or the website, and be free from here. Something else to note is that people who take LOAs must stay on leave as it is something they requested. If people are using this to skimp out because of their duties the branch leaders should know. I will yield and hear out more of my colleagues before the vote.

:38kevincool@I don't think it's needed to request to come back and work; it's just extra red tape. Instead, a notification to branch leadership, in my opinion, is all that's needed; like it always has been; before and now.

I don't think it's fair to get sued to work while an LOA is going on. If that were the case, branch leadership teams should be given the power to cancel your LOA, if that would happen.

I also have to point out the common framework violations with the title. "Act", and "2026" need to be removed, and "Bill added at the end of the title.

:40cavemanq (Massachusetts)[On a point of order.] I would simply like to point out that the bill does not make employees on an LOA request it be terminated before returning to work. It only needs to be requested when tehy are ending the LOA before the original period is up.

:42ChairThat's not a point of order.

cavemanqIt's false information. The Speaker said my bill made it so people had to request their LOAs be canceled. That is technically false; it's only if they wish to end it early.

:43kevincool@[Interruption.] But it says "Employees may request a Leave of Absence Cancellation if they want to come back to work"

Chair[To cavemanq.] I dare say that was implied, since that was the topic at hand, overruled.

cavemanq[Interruption.] You aren't finishing the sentence, sir. It says "Employees may request a Leave of Absence Cancellation if they want to come back to work before the Leave of Absence period is up."

:44VendiciaeI would like to point out that much like what the representative from the Virgin Islands pointed out earlier, life does, in face, happen. Hence why I don't support the agenda this bill states. In that the request for cancellation be only necessary if the LOA must be terminated before the original planned timeframe. Given that just as much as exams, trips and family events come up, they too may also be canceled last minute. I believe that the cancellation request, whether it be through leadership approval or through other means the bill may provide, be an expedited process for the employee. Therefore, I support what this bill says in pt. 1, s. 2, subsection 3.

:47Veren (Oregon)Everyone has the right to take an LOA to clear their head for whatever reason, giving them the opportunity to pitch in in their branch when posssible and no one else can perform a specific task. I am in favor of flexibility; this makes it easier for someone, e.g., not to log in to Habbo/the website for a certain period of time, but to respond to or do something via Discord instead. Cancelling your own leave does not require a request. You simply cancel it and can resume your duties! These are my only points.

:49CoolvimtoThe thing is— One of the things— If we are to define LOA, we define it as taking a break, or having a holiday. Like in a job, we can requests holidays and days off. One of the concerns I have, specifically, is someone taking an LOA and then filling a seat [station] when they are in LOA? That doesn't make sense. So, they are getting paid to be on LOA? This affects the amount of money that the treasury has by having members on leave wanting to FTF. To me, that is not fair and my concern is that if one person does it, others might follow.

And, another concern I have is work. The work and duties you are given here are tasks (and we will be starting weekly tasks for the legislative branch). If to say that people are using LOA to get out of tasks or to avoid troublesome tasks, this becomes a problem in a whole new world. I would prefer someone comes to us and says "I cannot complete a task, I am sorry" than trying to hide through an LOA.

:54As a branch leader, I prefer someone speak to me, and we can find something, rather than them trying to hide away from their tasks and duties they are assigned. [5 minute warning given.] This goes by us, branch leaders and members of the executive.

kevincool@[Interruption.] Wanted to poo. :(

ChairSorry, Kevin. :c

:55kevincool@[Motion made, and question put, that this House skips to voting.]

:56ChairI will take that motion in two seconds, but first, I recommend that someone motion to remane the bill to: "Employment (Working on LOA) Bill". And, if no one wants to, I will report the motion.

:57cavemanq[Motion made, and question put, that the short title "Employement (Working on LOA) Bill" is adopted for HB 77.]

:59[Question thus agreed to.]

23:00Question put, that this House has considered the Employment (Working on LOA) Bill at stage 2.

:01[Question thus agreed to.]

:02ChairShall we go for another?

VerenNay.

cavemanq[Motion made, and question put, and agreed to, that this House does adjourn.]

[The House adjourned at 23:03 UTC.]