PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Oct 21, 2003
Joint Administrative Procedures Committee Act of 2003 (JAPC Act) - Establishes a Joint Administrative Procedures Committee to selectively review existing major rules of Federal agencies and recommend amendment or repeal of such rules. Directs the Committee to periodically review the regulatory plan of each agency of its most important significant regulatory actions that the agency reasonably expects to issue in proposed or final form in the fiscal year in which the plan is submitted.
Makes it in order for any Member of the House, after the third legislative day after the date on which the committee to which a joint resolution is referred has reported, to move to proceed to consideration of a joint resolution. Waives all points of order against the motion to proceed and against consideration of that motion. Makes the motion privileged in the House and not debatable. Provides that: (1) the motion is not subject to amendment, to a motion to postpone, or to a motion to proceed to the consideration of other business; and (2) debate in the House shall not exceed one hour.
Provides that: (1) before a rule can take effect, the Federal agency promulgating the rule shall submit to each house of Congress and to the Comptroller General a report to the Committee; and (2) within a specified time frame, the Committee may report a committee resolution recommending that each standing committee with jurisdiction to which copies of the applicable report were provided report a joint resolution disapproving the applicable rule.
People & committees
Rep. Brown-Waite, Ginny [R-FL-5] · R–FL
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR H2454)
Referred to the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law.
Referred to the Committee on Rules, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, 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 Rules, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, 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 Rules, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, 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.3356 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.3356 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.3356 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.3356 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.