PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jul 24, 2000
Truth in Regulating Act of 2000 - Provides that when a Federal agency (except an independent regulatory agency) publishes an economically significant rule, a chairman or ranking member of a committee of jurisdiction of either House of Congress may request the Comptroller General to review such rule. Defines "economically significant rule" to mean any proposed or final rule, including an interim or direct final rule, that may have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities, or for which an agency has prepared an initial or final regulatory flexibility analysis. Requires the Comptroller General to submit a report on each rule reviewed, including an independent evaluation of an agency's analysis of the costs and benefits, and alternative approaches in the notice of proposed rulemaking and in the rulemaking record, as well as of any regulatory impact analysis, federalism assessment, or other analysis or assessment prepared by the agency or required for the rule, and the results of the evaluation and the implication of those results. Grants the Comptroller General discretion to develop procedures for determining the priority and number of requests for review.Authorizes appropriations for FY 2001 through 2003.Provides for the pilot project established under this Act to continue for a three-year period, if specified appropriations are provided. Requires the Comptroller General to report to Congress on such project's effectiveness and on whether it should be authorized permanently.
People & committees
Rep. Kelly, Sue W. [R-NY-19] · R–NY
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 Governmental Affairs.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H6851)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H6851)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with one hour of debate on H.R. 4924.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H6851-6855)
Mr. Ryan (WI) moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
Referred to the House Committee on Government Reform.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Aug 20, 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.4924 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.4924 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.4924 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.4924 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.