PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Finance and Hazardous Materials.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Nov 10, 1999
Regulatory Improvement Act of 2000 - Requires a Federal agency, when it publishes a notice of proposed rule making for a major rule, to: (1) prepare and place in the rule making file an initial regulatory impact analysis; and (2) include a summary of such analysis in the notice of proposed rule making.Requires that, when the Director of the Office of Management and Budget has designated a rule as a major rule, or when an agency has published an interim final major rule, such agency shall: (1) promptly prepare and place in the rule making file an initial regulatory impact analysis; (2) publish in the Federal Register a summary of such analysis; and (3) give interested parties the same opportunity to comment as if the initial regulatory impact analysis had been issued with the notice of proposed rule making. Requires an agency publishing a final major rule to prepare and place in the rule making file a final regulatory impact analysis which shall reflect any changes made to the proposed rule or its cost-benefit analysis or risk assessment, as well as agency consideration of comments from interested parties as provided above.Mandates a comparative risk study by the Director of the extent and severity of significant risks to human health, safety, or the environment. Requires the President to periodically report to Congress recommending legislation to reduce such risks.
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.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Finance and Hazardous Materials.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Health and Environment.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E2382-2383)
Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Commerce, 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 Commerce, 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 Commerce, 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: Jun 3, 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.3311 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.3311 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.3311 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.3311 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.