PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Technology and the House.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Apr 7, 2003
Legislative Oversight of Significant Regulations Act of 2003 - Revises provisions governing the congressional review of agency rulemaking. Imposes review requirements upon only rules described as "significant" in the authorizing Act. Prohibits a significant rule from taking effect before the enactment of a joint resolution comprising solely of the text of such rule.
Requires the report submitted by a Federal agency proposing a significant rule to include an explanation of the specific statutory interpretation under which a rule is proposed, including an explanation of whether the interpretation is expressly required by the text of the statute or, if not, an explanation that the interpretation is within the permissible range and an explanation of why the interpretation was selected. Provides that if Congress fails to enact a joint resolution approving a proposed significant rule, no court or agency may infer any intent of Congress from any action or inaction with regard to such rule or related statute.
Sets forth: (1) the congressional approval procedure for significant rules (current law sets forth disapproval procedure for rules); and (2) provisions with respect to revising or revoking an existing rule by joint resolution.
People & committees
Rep. Smith, Nick [R-MI-7] · R–MI
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Technology and the House.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law.
Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Rules, 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.
Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Rules, 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.
Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Rules, 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.
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: Aug 18, 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.1654 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.1654 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.1654 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.1654 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.