Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of Labor relating to the Adverse Effect Wage Rate.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Congressional Research Service
Official summary
No official summary is available in the imported record yet.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Sep 19, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Explore the bill from different angles
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Neutral evidence review
Objective
Analyze H.J.Res.154 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
View full prompt & sources
Fairness and public impact
Progressive lens
Examine H.J.Res.154 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
View full prompt & sources
Institutions and government scope
Conservative lens
Examine H.J.Res.154 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
View full prompt & sources
Individual rights and government power
Liberty lens
Examine H.J.Res.154 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.
View full prompt & sources
PlainBill explanation
Read the proposal in plain language
AI-generated · Source-checked by AI · Oct 19, 2026
Based on the full Introduced in House · 2026-03-26 text. This explanation has not received human editorial review. This overview describes the proposal’s major provisions; it does not establish what its real-world effects would be.
What it would do
This resolution proposes to cancel a Department of Labor rule about how a wage rate is calculated for temporary foreign workers under the H-2A program in jobs classified as non-range occupations. If enacted, it would give the specified rule no legal effect.
Check the source
That Congress disapproves the rule submitted by the Department of Labor relating to the Adverse Effect Wage Rate Methodology for the Temporary Employment of H-2A Nonimmigrants in Non-Range Occupations in the United States (90 Fed. Reg. 47914, Oct. 2, 2025) and such rule shall have no force or effect.
The proposed cancellation applies to the rule published on October 2, 2025, in volume 90 of the Federal Register at page 47914. The resolution does not specify a replacement wage calculation method or a separate implementation date.
Check the source
That Congress disapproves the rule submitted by the Department of Labor relating to the Adverse Effect Wage Rate Methodology for the Temporary Employment of H-2A Nonimmigrants in Non-Range Occupations in the United States (90 Fed. Reg. 47914, Oct. 2, 2025) and such rule shall have no force or effect.
The supplied action snapshot, updated September 19, 2026, records introduction in the House and referral to the House Committee on the Judiciary on March 26, 2026.
Check the source
Source snapshot updated 2026-09-19T23:39:29Z.
2026-03-26: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
2026-03-26: Introduced in House
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2026-03-26. These findings describe provisions and who may benefit; they are not judgments of waste, corruption, or motive.
This review covers the supplied bill text. “None identified” does not rule out provisions in later versions or accompanying reports and disclosures.
Provisions outside the bill’s main subject, or policy changes attached to appropriations.
None identified in the reviewed text
No unrelated provision or policy change attached to appropriations was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version.
Spending directed to particular recipients or places outside ordinary competitive or formula-based allocation.
None identified in the reviewed text
No congressionally directed spending for particular recipients or places was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion does not cover other versions or accompanying materials.
Other targeted benefits
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
None identified in the reviewed text
No materially narrow carve-out, special exemption, or preferential treatment was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version.
What this analysis cannot establish
The underlying Labor Department rule and surrounding law are not supplied. The bundle does not establish the detailed occupations covered, what wage calculation method would apply after cancellation, or how workers’ wages and employers’ obligations would change.
The action snapshot supplies no passage or enactment record. This analysis describes a proposal; the absence of additional actions does not establish that the resolution never advanced or became law.
The review covers only the supplied introduced text. Other versions, committee materials, and earmark disclosures are not supplied.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Sep 19, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI