PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 388.
Congressional Research Service
Version 17 · Reported to House with amendment(s) · Sep 13, 2006
Amends the Truth in Regulating Act of 2000 to continue for an additional three-year period the pilot project that permits a chairman or ranking member of a committee of jurisdiction of either House of Congress to request the Comptroller General to review an economically significant rule that may have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or that will adversely affect in a material way the economy (or a sector), productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or state, local, or tribal governments or communities.
Authorizes appropriations to the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to carry out the Act for FY2007-FY2009.
People & committees
Rep. Kelly, Sue W. [R-NY-19] · R–NY
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 388.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Government Reform. H. Rept. 109-652.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Government Reform. H. Rept. 109-652.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR H4489-4490)
Referred to the House Committee on Government Reform.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Apr 7, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
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.
Analyze H.R.1167 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.
Examine H.R.1167 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.
Examine H.R.1167 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.
Examine H.R.1167 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.