PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial And Antitrust Law.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · May 27, 2016
This bill requires guidance documents of federal agencies to be considered rules that are subject to the congressional review process, which Congress can use to overturn certain agency actions through a joint resolution of disapproval. "Guidance document" is defined as a statement of general applicability and future effect, other than a regulatory action, issued by a federal agency that sets forth: (1) a policy on a statutory, regulatory, or technical issue; or (2) an interpretation of a statutory or regulatory issue.
Significant guidance documents are subject to review as major rules, which delays their effective date and requires the Government Accountability Office to review the agency's compliance with the regulatory process. A "significant guidance document" is a guidance document disseminated to regulated entities or the general public that may reasonably be anticipated to: (1) lead to an annual effect of at least $100 million or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, employment, the environment, public health or safety, or state, local, or tribal governments or communities; (2) create a serious inconsistency, or otherwise interfere, with an action taken or planned by another federal agency; (3) materially alter the budgetary impact of any entitlement, grant, user fees, or loan programs or the rights or obligations of recipients; or (4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates.
A guidance document is not considered to be significant if it: (1) concerns regulations issued in accordance with administrative procedures for rules required by statute to be made on record after opportunity for an agency hearing; (2) pertains to a U.S. military or foreign affairs function other than procurement regulations and regulations involving the import or export of non-defense articles and services; (3) concerns regulations that are limited to the organization, management, or personnel matters of a federal agency; or (4) belongs to a category of guidance documents exempted by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.
People & committees
Rep. Salmon, Matt [R-AZ-5] · R–AZ
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 Regulatory Reform, Commercial And Antitrust Law.
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: Jan 3, 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.5377 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.5377 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.5377 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.5377 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.