PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and read twice and referred to the Committee on Judiciary.
Congressional Research Service
Version 17 · Reported to House with amendment(s) · Nov 8, 1997
Federal Agency Compliance Act - Requires a Federal agency and its officers and employees, in administering a statute, rule, regulation, program, or policy (statute) within a judicial circuit, to adhere to the existing precedent respecting the interpretation and application of such statute, as established by the decisions of the U.S. court of appeals for that circuit, with exceptions. Allows an agency to take a position, either in administration or litigation, that is at variance with such precedent if: (1) it is uncertain whether the administration of the statute will be subject to review by the appeals court that established that precedent or a court of appeals for another circuit; (2) the Government did not seek further review of the case in which that precedent was first established in that appeals court or the U.S. Supreme Court because neither the United States nor any agency or officer thereof was a party to the case or because the decision establishing that precedent was otherwise substantially favorable to the Government; or (3) it is reasonable to question the continued validity of that precedent in light of a subsequent decision of that appeals court or the U.S. Supreme Court, a subsequent change in any pertinent statute or regulation, or any other subsequent change in the public policy or circumstances on which that precedent was based. Requires: (1) the officers of any Federal agency supervising the conduct of litigation to ensure that the initiation, defense, and continuation of proceedings in the U.S. courts within, or subject to the jurisdiction of, a particular judicial circuit avoids unnecessarily repetitive litigation on questions of law already consistently resolved against the U.S. position in precedents established by the U.S. courts of appeals for three or more other judicial circuits; (2) decisions on whether to initiate, defend, or continue litigation for purposes of this Act to take into account specified factors, including the effect of intervening changes in pertinent law or the public policy or circumstances on which the established precedents were based; and (3) the Attorney General to report annually to specified congressional committees on the Federal agency efforts to comply with such requirements. Specifies that a decision on whether to initiate, defend, or continue litigation is not subject to court review on the grounds that the decision violates such requirements.
People & committees
Rep. Gekas, George W. [R-PA-17] · R–PA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate and read twice and referred to the Committee on Judiciary.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On passage Passed by recorded vote: 241 - 176 (Roll no. 24).
House roll call 24 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed by recorded vote: 241 - 176 (Roll no. 24).
House roll call 24 · Individual votesThe House adopted the amendment in the nature of a substitute as agreed to by the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union.
The previous question was ordered pursuant to the rule.
The House rose from the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union to report H.R. 1544.
The House resolved into Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for further consideration.
Considered as unfinished business.
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union rises leaving H.R. 1544 as unfinished business.
POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the end of debate on the Jackson-Lee amendment, the Chair put the question and by voice vote, announced that the noes had prevailed. Ms. Jackson-Lee demanded a recorded vote and the Chair postponed further proceedings until later in the day.
POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the end of debate on the Jackson-Lee amendment, the Chair put the question and by voice vote, announced that the noes had prevailed. Ms. Jackson-Lee demanded a recorded vote and the Chair postponed further proceedings until later in the day.
GENERAL DEBATE - The Committee of the Whole proceeded with one hour of general debate.
The Speaker designated the Honorable Jo Ann Emerson to act as Chairwoman of the Committee.
House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union pursuant to H. Res. 367 and Rule XXIII.
Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 1544 with 1 hour of general debate. Previous question shall be considered as ordered without intervening motions except motion to recommit. Measure will be read by section. Bill is open to amendments. It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment, the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in the bill.
Considered under the provisions of rule H. Res. 367. (consideration: CR H587-598; H609-611)
Rule H. Res. 367 passed House.
Rules Committee Resolution H. Res. 367 Reported to House. Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 1544 with 1 hour of general debate. Previous question shall be considered as ordered without intervening motions except motion to recommit. Measure will be read by section. Bill is open to amendments. It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in the bill.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 230.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 105-395.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 105-395.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee by Voice Vote.
Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Aug 10, 2026. 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.1544 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.1544 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.1544 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.1544 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.