PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.
H.R.3307 / 104th Congress

Regulatory Fair Warning Act

Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 466.

Official summary

Version 00 · Introduced in House · Apr 24, 1996

Regulatory Fair Warning Act - Amends Federal Government operations law to limit the sanctions which may be imposed by courts and agencies for rule violations: (1) involving agency rules which failed to give the defendant fair warning of the conduct that the rule prohibits or requires; (2) where the defendant reasonably and in good faith determined prior to the violation that he or she was in compliance with, exempt from, or otherwise not subject to, the rule requirements based upon his or her understanding of the rule text and published guidances and policies related to the rule; or (3) committed in reasonable reliance upon a written statement by a Federal or State official authorized to implement or ensure compliance with the rule, made after disclosure by the defendant of all material facts, that the defendant was in compliance with, exempt from, or otherwise not subject to the rule requirements. Prohibits the court or agency in an action brought to impose a civil or criminal sanction for an alleged rule violation from giving deference to any interpretation of such rule relied upon by the promulgating agency that was not published in the Federal Register or was not available to the defendant before the alleged violation.

Read the summary on Congress.gov
PlainBill analysis is coming later. This page presents official source data. We have not yet published a PlainBill explanation for this bill.

Who introduced it

Rep. Gekas, George W. [R-PA-17] · R–PA

Committees

  • Judiciary Committee
35 cosponsorship records, including any withdrawals

Actions

A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.

  1. Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 466.

  2. Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 104-859.

  3. Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 104-859.

  4. Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 16 - 9.

  5. Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.

  6. Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.

  7. Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.

  8. Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee (Amended) by Voice Vote.

  9. Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.

  10. Subcommittee Hearings Held.

  11. Referred to the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law.

  12. Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E635)

  13. Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.

  14. Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR H3737)

  15. Introduced in House

  16. Introduced in House

Bill text & related measures

Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.

Related bills identified by Congress.gov

No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.

Source last updated: Aug 21, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.

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.R.3307 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.R.3307 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.R.3307 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.R.3307 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