Jahana Hayes (D-CT)
Recognizing the need to improve physical access to many federally funded facilities for all persons of the United States, particularly persons with disabilities.
A Democratic resolution with 14 Democratic cosponsors · See all 14 cosponsors
Last activity — Referred to the Committee on Education and Workforce, and in addition to the Committees on the Judiciary, Transportation and Infrastructure, Energy and Commerce, and Oversight and Government Reform, 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.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
A concurrent resolution is how the House and the Senate settle something they do together, such as a budget plan or a joint session. It is adopted once both chambers agree to it, and that puts it into effect; it is not a law, so it does not go to the President.
What this bill would do
H. Con. Res. 112 is a concurrent resolution that recognizes the need to improve physical access to federally funded facilities. It focuses on the challenges faced by persons with disabilities and reaffirms support for the Architectural Barriers Act of 1968 and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. The resolution encourages full compliance with these laws. Additionally, it pledges to use universal and inclusive design as a guiding principle for future infrastructure projects. The goal is to remove barriers that prevent equal access to Federal Government services.
Yes· 3 of 23
- Scored +10
Would people with disabilities be better off under this?
The entire purpose of the resolution is to improve physical access for persons with disabilities.
- Scored +10
Does this expand the rights of people with disabilities?
The resolution specifically recognizes and seeks to remove barriers to physical access for persons with disabilities.
- Scored +8
Would veterans be better off under this, taking everything together?
The bill explicitly mentions that 34 percent of veterans have a service-connected disability.
The opposite
No question was scored the opposite.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Support for Existing Accessibility Laws: By reaffirming support for the Architectural Barriers Act of 1968 and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and encouraging full compliance, the resolution seeks to ensure that federally funded facilities remain accessible to persons with disabilities. (Section 2)
-
Commitment to Inclusive Design: The pledge to make universal and inclusive design a guiding principle for all infrastructure bills and projects could lead to better accessibility in future construction. (Section 3)
-
Removal of Access Barriers: The pledge to identify and remove barriers to Federal Government services aims to provide all people of the United States with equal access. (Section 3)
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- No negative impacts for individuals or groups of people are explicitly mentioned in the provided text.
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would people with disabilities be better off under this? — The entire purpose of the resolution is to improve physical access for persons with disabilities. Would veterans be better off under this, taking everything together? — The bill explicitly mentions that 34 percent of veterans have a service-connected disability. Would retired people be better off under this? — Increased accessibility is critical for retirees who may experience age-related frailty or disability. Would people over 65 be better off under this? — The bill explicitly notes that aging increases disability, making inclusive design highly beneficial for seniors. Would people in cities be better off under this? — Focus on public rights-of-way, sidewalks, and transit stops primarily impacts urban environments. Would Black Americans be better off under this? — The bill acknowledges that people of color have higher disability rates, thus they benefit from increased accessibility. Would Asian Americans be better off under this? — The bill acknowledges that people of color have higher disability rates, thus they benefit from increased accessibility. Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this? — The bill acknowledges that people of color have higher disability rates, thus they benefit from increased accessibility. Would Native Americans be better off under this? — The bill acknowledges that people of color have higher disability rates, thus they benefit from increased accessibility. Would children be better off under this? — Inclusive design in public facilities benefits children with disabilities. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Improved access to federal services is particularly beneficial for those relying on public infrastructure. Would people in middle age be better off under this? — Inclusive design in public facilities benefits middle-aged adults with disabilities. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — Federal facilities in rural areas also benefit from accessibility mandates. Would white Americans be better off under this? — General accessibility improvements benefit all citizens. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — Inclusive design in public facilities benefits young adults with disabilities. Would high-income households be better off under this? — General improvement in public accessibility benefits a broad range of households. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — General improvement in public accessibility benefits a broad range of households.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Does this expand the rights of people with disabilities? — The resolution specifically recognizes and seeks to remove barriers to physical access for persons with disabilities. Does this narrow racial gaps in how people are treated? — The bill acknowledges that people of color have higher disability rates and seeks to improve accessibility for all.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this improve buses, trains and other public transport? — The resolution supports accessibility guidelines for transit stops and public rights-of-way. Does this repair or build roads and bridges? — The resolution pledges to use inclusive design for all infrastructure projects and pedestrian facilities.
- Healthcare
- Does this make health care easier to get in general? — Improving physical access to federally funded facilities helps people with disabilities access healthcare services.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this give the federal government more power? — The resolution emphasizes federal compliance and guidelines for federally funded facilities.
- 10/15/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 7/20/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 7/15/2026
- Submitted in House
- Referred to the Committee on Education and Workforce, and in addition to the Committees on the Judiciary, Transportation and Infrastructure, Energy and Commerce, and Oversight and Government Reform, 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.
- 12 Cosponsors added.
2 bills Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.
- 119-HCONRES-45: Recognizing the need to improve physical access to many federally funded facilities for all people of the United States, particularly people with disabilities.
- 119-SCONRES-19: A concurrent resolution recognizing the need to improve physical access to many federally funded facilities for all people of the United States, particularly people with disabilities.
Wesley BellDemocrat · Missouri
Steve CohenDemocrat · Tennessee
Debbie DingellDemocrat · Michigan
Adelita GrijalvaDemocrat · Arizona
Jonathan JacksonDemocrat · Illinois
Kevin MullinDemocrat · California
John MannionDemocrat · New York
Eleanor NortonDemocrat · District of Columbia
Janice SchakowskyDemocrat · Illinois
Lateefah SimonDemocrat · California
Dina TitusDemocrat · Nevada
Paul TonkoDemocrat · New York
Rashida TlaibDemocrat · Michigan
Frederica WilsonDemocrat · Florida