Strong bill ideas for a mock congress come from real, active policy fights where the tradeoffs are sharp and the numbers are already on the record: capping federal student loan interest, requiring impact assessments for high-stakes algorithms, pricing carbon and rebating the revenue, raising and indexing the minimum wage, reclassifying gig workers, narrowing qualified immunity, and reforming visa backlogs. The proposals below each come with enough mechanical detail to draft, defend in committee, and take to the floor. Before the ideas, a quick word on the shape of a bill, because a well-drafted bill on a modest idea beats a vague bill on a great one every time.
How to Structure a Mock Bill
Most mock congress programs expect five sections, each doing specific work.
- Title and enacting clause. A one-sentence description of what the bill does (“A Bill to Cap Federal Student Loan Interest Rates at 2 Percent”), followed by the standard enacting clause: “BE IT ENACTED BY THE CONGRESS HERE ASSEMBLED THAT.”
- Section 1, the policy. State exactly what changes. Use sub-points for detail. The more specific this section is, the harder your bill is to attack on vagueness grounds.
- Section 2, definitions. Pin down any term an opponent could twist. If your bill regulates “large online platforms,” define the revenue or user-count threshold that triggers coverage.
- Section 3, enforcement. Name the federal agency responsible for implementation and what happens when someone violates the law. Bills without teeth rarely survive debate.
- Section 4, timeline. Set an effective date or phase-in schedule. A carbon fee starting immediately invites different objections than one phased in over five years.
Bills introduced in the House carry an “H.R.” prefix and Senate bills carry an “S.” prefix, with numbers assigned sequentially as they’re introduced. Numbering resets every two years when a new Congress convenes. Assigning your bill a realistic designation adds authenticity and forces an early choice: which chamber are you introducing in, and how does that shape your procedural strategy later?
Education and Student Life
Capping Federal Student Loan Interest Rates
Federal student loan interest rates for the 2025–2026 academic year sit at 6.39% for undergraduate Direct Loans, 7.94% for graduate loans, and 8.94% for parent and graduate PLUS loans.1Knowledge Center. Interest Rates for Direct Loans First Disbursed Between July 1, 2025 and June 30, 2026 A bill could cap the interest rate on all new and existing federal Direct Loans at a fixed 2%, locked in for the life of the loan. The bipartisan Lowering Student Loans Act introduced in 2025 uses exactly this structure, setting a 2% fixed rate for every loan type starting July 1, 2026, and automatically reducing existing loans above that threshold.2Representative Mike Thompson’s Website. Reps. Thompson and Moylan Introduce Bipartisan Lowering Student Loans Act to Cap Federal Student Loan Interest Rates at 2 Percent
Supporters argue high rates force borrowers to pay down interest instead of principal, stretching repayment over decades. Opponents counter that subsidized rates cost the federal government revenue and that borrowers already have access to income-driven repayment plans. A well-drafted mock bill will specify the rate, which loan types are covered, whether the cap applies retroactively, and how the lost revenue is offset — through spending cuts, new taxes, or accepted as a federal investment.
Mandating Financial Literacy Education
Roughly 41 states now require some form of personal finance education for high school graduation, though depth and rigor vary. A federal bill could standardize this by conditioning a portion of existing education block grants on states adopting a comprehensive financial literacy and civics curriculum covering budgeting, credit, taxes, and the structure of the U.S. government. Proponents see a generation of financially literate adults. Opponents raise federalism concerns about Washington dictating local curricula and worry about crowding out subjects like science or foreign language. Your bill should address how much grant money is at stake, what counts as “comprehensive,” and whether states can design their own courses or must follow a federal template.
Requiring Wealthy Universities to Spend Endowment Returns on Aid
Private colleges with at least 500 tuition-paying students and $500,000 in endowment assets per student already pay a 1.4% federal excise tax on investment income. A mock bill could go further by requiring institutions with endowments exceeding $1 billion to direct at least 10% of their annual endowment returns toward need-based financial aid for Pell Grant-eligible students. For context, the maximum Pell Grant for 2026–2027 is $7,395, and students with a Student Aid Index of $14,790 or higher are ineligible.3Knowledge Center. 2026-27 Federal Pell Grant Maximum and Minimum Award Amounts The debate turns on whether the federal government should dictate how private institutions spend investment returns, whether mandated spending reduces the long-term endowment growth that funds future aid, and whether a percentage-of-returns requirement penalizes schools during poor market years.
Technology and Digital Life
Algorithmic Accountability
Automated systems make consequential decisions about loan applications, hiring, housing, and healthcare, often without the people affected knowing an algorithm was involved. A bill modeled on the Algorithmic Accountability Act would require companies using AI in high-stakes decisions to conduct impact assessments before deployment, identifying bias, documenting the data the system was trained on, and publishing the results.4Wyden Senate Office. Algorithmic Accountability Act of 2023 Summary The strongest version defines “high-risk” by outcome rather than industry: any automated system affecting housing, employment, credit, education, or criminal justice triggers the assessment requirement. Opponents argue compliance costs stifle innovation, particularly for startups. A useful rebuttal is that assessment requirements can scale with company size, exempting small businesses while holding large platforms accountable.
Consumer Data Privacy and Opt-In Consent
The United States still lacks a comprehensive federal data privacy law. Most platforms operate on an “opt-out” model, where user data is collected and shared by default unless people navigate settings menus to stop it. A bill could flip this to “opt-in,” requiring explicit, affirmative consent before any company shares or sells user-specific personal data. The advertising industry argues opt-in consent would collapse the ad-supported internet because most users won’t bother to opt in. Privacy advocates counter that a business model dependent on user confusion is itself the problem. Your bill needs to define what counts as “personal data,” set penalties for violations, and decide whether the FTC or a new agency handles enforcement.
Labeling AI-Generated Media
Deepfakes and other generative AI content have moved from novelty to genuine threat, particularly in elections and non-consensual intimate imagery. A bill could mandate digital watermarking and visible labeling for all AI-generated media distributed on platforms with more than 10 million users. For non-consensual deepfakes specifically, the DEFIANCE Act provides a model by creating a federal civil right for victims to sue creators and distributors, seek monetary damages, and obtain court-ordered removal of the content.5Problem Solvers Caucus. Problem Solvers Caucus Endorses DEFIANCE Act to Allow Victims of Non-Consensual Deepfakes to Sue Perpetrators The key drafting question: should your bill penalize the AI tool makers, the users who generate deceptive content, or the platforms that host it? Each choice produces a different debate.
Environment and Energy
Carbon Fee and Dividend
A carbon fee-and-dividend bill imposes a per-ton charge on carbon dioxide emissions at the point of extraction or importation and then returns the revenue directly to citizens. Multiple congressional proposals have used $25 per metric ton as the starting price, increasing annually by $10 per ton with additional escalators if emission targets are missed.6Congressional Budget Office. Impose a Tax on Emissions of Greenhouse Gases The CBO has estimated a $25-per-ton tax increasing at 5% annually would generate over $900 billion in revenue across a decade. The dividend mechanism is what makes this bill politically distinctive: revenue goes back to households as monthly payments, which tends to make lower-income households net winners because they consume less energy relative to the rebate they receive.
Energy-intensive industries warn of job losses and offshoring to countries without carbon pricing. Agricultural interests worry about fuel and fertilizer costs. Your bill should specify whether the fee covers all fossil fuels or exempts certain sectors, how the dividend is calculated and distributed, and whether a border adjustment tariff applies to imports from countries without equivalent carbon pricing.
Green Infrastructure Grants
A dedicated federal grant program for green infrastructure could target projects that reduce transportation emissions and improve energy efficiency in underserved communities. Eligible projects might include high-efficiency public transit, modernized electric grid capacity, and large-scale renewable energy storage. The strongest version of this bill would prioritize communities with historically high energy burdens, meaning households spending a disproportionate share of income on utility bills. The debate centers on whether the federal government should pick technological winners, how to prevent grants from flowing primarily to wealthy cities with the staff to write competitive applications, and whether prevailing-wage requirements should attach to funded projects.
Phasing Out Single-Use Plastics
A phased federal ban on specific non-recyclable, single-use plastic materials would target items that burden municipal recycling systems, such as expanded polystyrene food containers, lightweight carryout bags, and plastic stirrers. The phase-out could follow the model of the executive commitment to eliminate single-use plastics across federal agencies by 2035, with food service and packaging targeted earlier. Your bill should specify which materials are banned (not all plastics, just non-recyclable ones), the phase-in timeline, and whether Extended Producer Responsibility requirements shift disposal costs to manufacturers. Opponents will argue this raises costs for small restaurants and retailers who rely on cheap plastic packaging and that recycling technology improvements could make bans unnecessary.
Public Health and Safety
Expanding Prescription Drug Price Negotiation
The Inflation Reduction Act gave Medicare the authority to negotiate prices on a limited set of high-cost drugs, starting with 10 Part D medications for 2026, including treatments for blood clots, diabetes, heart failure, and blood cancers.7Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program: Selected Drugs for Initial Price Applicability Year 2026 Starting in 2027, up to 20 additional drugs will be selected annually.8KFF. Key Facts About Medicare Drug Price Negotiation A mock bill could push significantly further by expanding negotiation authority beyond Medicare to cover all federal health programs (Medicaid, the VA, TRICARE, and the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program) and by removing the cap on how many drugs can be negotiated each year.
Pharmaceutical companies argue price controls reduce the incentive to invest in research and development, which means fewer breakthrough drugs in the future. Supporters point to billions in estimated savings from the first round of negotiations alone and to the fact that Americans pay far more for the same medications than patients in other wealthy countries. Your bill should specify how “high-cost” is defined, what the negotiation process looks like, and what penalty applies when a manufacturer refuses to negotiate.
Mental Health Professionals in Schools
A bill could fund the hiring of licensed counselors, psychologists, and social workers in public schools through dedicated federal grants, with the goal of meeting a specific student-to-professional ratio. The American School Counselor Association recommends a 250-to-1 ratio; many districts currently operate above 400-to-1. The enforcement mechanism matters here. Does the bill mandate a ratio and penalize schools that miss it, or does it simply offer incentive funding? Mandates create compliance costs for districts that can’t recruit enough professionals. Incentive-only approaches risk being ignored by the districts that need help most.
Permanent Funding for the 988 Crisis Lifeline
The 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline launched as a federally mandated service but without permanent federal funding for the state-level call centers that actually answer the calls. States have scrambled to fill the gap through cell phone surcharges, general fund allocations, and grants that expire every few years.9Center for Mental Health and Addiction Policy. Funding the Lifeline: How States Are Sustaining 988 and Transforming Crisis Care A bill could establish a permanent, dedicated federal funding stream for 988 operations and for community-based mobile crisis teams, meaning responders who show up in person instead of dispatching police. SAMHSA has funded some of these programs through competitive grants, but at modest levels: one recent crisis center follow-up program offered just $500,000 per year per award.10SAMHSA. Cooperative Agreements for 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline Crisis Center Follow-Up Programs Debate this: should this be funded through a universal telecom surcharge (like 911), general revenue, or mandatory appropriations?
Economic and Labor Market Reforms
Classifying Gig Economy Workers
Whether app-based drivers, delivery workers, and freelancers qualify as employees or independent contractors determines whether they receive minimum wage, overtime, unemployment insurance, and workers’ compensation protections. The Department of Labor published updated guidance in 2024 on how to analyze this question under the Fair Labor Standards Act, but the multi-factor test still leaves enormous gray area.11U.S. Department of Labor. Misclassification of Employees as Independent Contractors Under the Fair Labor Standards Act
One approach replaces the current multi-factor analysis with a bright-line “ABC test,” under which a worker is an employee unless the hiring entity proves all three conditions: the worker is free from the company’s control, the work falls outside the company’s usual business, and the worker operates an independent trade or business. This test, already used in several states, would reclassify most app-based workers as employees. An alternative creates a third category, a hybrid classification that provides portable benefits (retirement accounts, anti-discrimination protections) without full employee status. Under a portable benefits model, multiple companies contribute a percentage of what they pay the worker into a centralized personal benefits account administered by a third party that tracks earnings across all of a worker’s gigs. The flexibility-versus-protection tradeoff produces some of the sharpest floor debates in mock congress.
Raising and Indexing the Federal Minimum Wage
The federal minimum wage has been $7.25 per hour since 2009, the longest stretch without an increase in its history. The Raise the Wage Act of 2025 proposes raising it to $17 by 2030, phased in through annual increases: $9.50 in 2025, $11.00 in 2026, $12.50 in 2027, $14.00 in 2028, $15.50 in 2029, and $17.00 in 2030.12House Committee on Education and the Workforce Democrats. Raise the Wage Act Fact Sheet The bill also phases out the lower tipped minimum wage ($2.13 currently) and indexes the minimum wage to median wages starting in 2031.
The indexing mechanism itself is a strong standalone debate. Two common approaches exist: tying the wage to the Consumer Price Index (CPI), which measures urban out-of-pocket spending and tends to show higher inflation, or to the Personal Consumption Expenditures index (PCE), which captures broader spending including employer-paid benefits and generally shows lower inflation. Over the period from 1970 to 2017, the CPI suggests minimum-wage purchasing power fell about 30%, while the PCE suggests only a 10% decline. Which index your bill uses isn’t a technicality; it determines how fast the minimum wage rises in future years. The CPI produces larger automatic increases; the PCE produces smaller ones. Pick one and be ready to defend it.
Corporate Tax Reform
The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 permanently cut the federal corporate income tax rate from 35% to a flat 21% and reshaped how multinational corporations are taxed on foreign income. A mock bill could raise the rate to a specific target (25% and 28% are common proposals) while simultaneously closing loopholes that allow profitable corporations to pay far less than the statutory rate. The TCJA created mechanisms like the Global Intangible Low-Taxed Income (GILTI) minimum tax and the Base Erosion and Anti-Abuse Tax (BEAT) to limit profit shifting, but both have been criticized as too generous. Your bill could strengthen these provisions by raising the GILTI rate, eliminating the qualified business asset exemption, or applying the higher rate only to corporations above a certain revenue threshold to protect small businesses. Opponents argue higher corporate taxes drive investment and jobs overseas. Supporters point out that U.S. corporate tax revenue as a share of the economy has declined for decades and that the 2017 cut did not produce the promised surge in domestic investment.
Criminal Justice and Policing
Criminal justice legislation generates passionate floor debate because the tradeoffs are so stark. Several real proposals have circulated over recent sessions, and each is adaptable to a mock bill.
A bill reforming qualified immunity would allow individuals to bring federal civil rights lawsuits against law enforcement officers who violate their constitutional rights, even when no prior court case involved identical facts. Under current doctrine, officers are shielded from personal liability unless their specific conduct was “clearly established” as unconstitutional by a previous ruling, a standard critics call nearly impossible to meet. Removing or narrowing qualified immunity doesn’t affect criminal prosecution of officers; it opens a civil liability path. Supporters argue accountability requires legal consequences. Opponents worry it would make officers hesitant to act in dangerous situations and would drive people out of policing.
A separate bill could establish a national use-of-force standard requiring that force be proportional to the threat, banning chokeholds except when deadly force is independently justified, and mandating de-escalation training. A third approach focuses on transparency: requiring body-worn cameras for all federal law enforcement and conditioning federal grants to state and local agencies on camera adoption and footage-retention policies. Each of these works as a standalone bill or can be combined into omnibus legislation, which itself becomes a strategic debate about whether comprehensive bills survive better or worse than narrow ones.
Immigration Policy
Immigration bills work well in mock congress because they force participants to grapple with overlapping systems: border security, visa processing, employer enforcement, and the status of people already in the country. The Dignity Act of 2025 provides a useful model. It raises the per-country green card cap from 7% to 15% to reduce nationality-based backlogs, protects “Documented Dreamers” who grew up in the U.S. on a parent’s work visa from aging out of status at 21, and creates a conditional pathway for undocumented individuals who pay a $7,000 fine over seven years, remain employed or in school, pass a background check, and carry health insurance.
A mock bill could borrow one of these elements or combine them. A narrower approach focuses solely on visa backlog reform, increasing annual caps and eliminating per-country limits, which avoids the most contentious questions about unauthorized immigration but still produces meaningful debate about labor market needs and fairness. A broader bill could pair a pathway to legal status with specific border enforcement funding and mandatory E-Verify for employers, forcing delegates to negotiate across ideological lines. The key drafting decision: does your bill treat border security and legal status as a single package (where one side won’t vote for half the bill), or as separate titles that can be amended independently?
Surviving Committee and Floor Debate
Understanding how bills move through Congress makes your mock congress more realistic and your strategy more effective. After introduction, a bill is referred to a committee, where the real legislative work happens.
Committee Markup
In markup, the chair calls the committee to order, establishes a quorum, and opens with statements. The bill is then read in full by the clerk, though this is almost always waived by unanimous consent. After the reading, the bill becomes open to amendments. Under regular order, amendments are offered section by section as the clerk reads through the text, but committees routinely waive this requirement to allow amendments to any section at any time. After all amendments have been debated and voted on, the committee votes to report the bill to the full chamber favorably, unfavorably, or without recommendation.13House of Representatives Committee on Rules. Special Rule Types Careful drafting pays off in markup. Vaguely worded sections invite hostile amendments that rewrite your bill from the inside.
Floor Debate Rules
Before a bill reaches the House floor, the Rules Committee sets the terms of debate. Three types of rules control what happens.
- Open rules. Any amendment that complies with House rules may be offered, debated under the five-minute rule. This produces the most free-wheeling debate.
- Structured rules. Only specific, pre-approved amendments may be considered, with time limits for debate on each.
- Closed rules. No amendments are permitted beyond what the reporting committee already adopted. The bill gets an up-or-down vote.
In the Senate, the filibuster adds a layer of complexity. Ending debate on legislation requires 60 votes to invoke cloture; once cloture passes, the bill moves to a final vote requiring a simple majority. Mock congress programs often simulate this dynamic by requiring a supermajority vote to end debate, which forces bill sponsors to build broader coalitions rather than relying on bare majorities.
Fiscal Impact and Scoring
Every serious mock congress bill should include at least a rough estimate of what it costs or saves. In the real Congress, the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation produce these estimates through a process called scoring.
Conventional scoring (sometimes called static scoring) calculates the direct spending or revenue impact of a bill while holding overall economic conditions like GDP, labor supply, and productivity constant. Dynamic scoring goes further by modeling how the bill would change economic behavior. A tax cut might increase investment, which generates additional tax revenue that partially offsets the cost. The difference between approaches can be enormous. For a tax bill, conventional scoring might show a $500 billion revenue loss, while dynamic scoring might show $350 billion because it credits the economic growth the cut is expected to produce.
Neither method is neutral. Advocates of tax cuts tend to prefer dynamic scoring because it gives more credit to growth effects. Advocates of spending programs point out that dynamic scoring relies on uncertain assumptions about how people and businesses will actually respond. Both methods agree on one thing: there is no free lunch. Even dynamic models rarely show a tax cut fully paying for itself. Pick a scoring method, explain why it fits your proposal, and prepare a realistic answer when an opponent asks how you’re paying for it. That single question sinks more mock bills than any policy objection.