PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Congressional Research Service
Version 36 · Passed House amended · Jun 16, 2009
Congressional Review Act Improvement Act - Eliminates a requirement that federal agencies must submit specified information about a rule to both Houses of Congress before such rule can take effect (thus requiring that the information be submitted to only the Comptroller General).
Requires the Comptroller General to submit to each House a weekly report containing a list of the rules received, including a notation identifying each major rule. Requires the Speaker of the House of Representatives to publish such report in the Congressional Record.
People & committees
Rep. Cohen, Steve [D-TN-9] · D–TN
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 Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 414 - 0 (Roll no. 343). (text: CR 6/15/2009 H6773-6774)
House roll call 343 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 414 - 0 (Roll no. 343).(text: CR 6/15/2009 H6773-6774)
House roll call 343 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H6849)
At the conclusion of debate, the Yeas and Nays were demanded and ordered. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 8, rule XX, the Chair announced that further proceedings on the motion would be postponed.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 2247.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H6773-6775)
Mr. Cohen moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 74.
Reported by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 111-150.
Reported by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 111-150.
Ordered to be Reported by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
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.
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.2247 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.2247 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.2247 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.2247 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.