PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Congressional Research Service
Version 81 · Passed House without amendment · Nov 17, 2016
(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The expanded summary of the House reported version is repeated here.)
Midnight Rules Relief Act of 2016
(Sec. 2) This bill amends the Congressional Review Act to allow Congress to consider a joint resolution to disapprove multiple regulations that federal agencies have submitted for congressional review within the last 60 legislative days of a session of Congress during the final year of a President's term. Congress may disapprove a group of such regulations together (i.e., "en bloc") instead of the current procedure of considering only one regulation at a time.
People & committees
Rep. Issa, Darrell E. [R-CA-49] · R–CA
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 Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On passage Passed by recorded vote: 240 - 179 (Roll no. 585). (text: CR H6278)
House roll call 585 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed by recorded vote: 240 - 179 (Roll no. 585).(text: CR H6278)
House roll call 585 · Individual votesOn motion to recommit with instructions Failed by recorded vote: 181 - 239 (Roll no. 584).
House roll call 584 · Individual votesThe previous question on the motion to recommit with instructions was ordered without objection. (consideration: CR H6287)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Pocan motion to recommit with instructions. The instructions contained in the motion seek to require the bill to be reported back to the House with an amendment to add an exemption to the end of bill for any rule that pertains to improving employment, retention, and earnings of workforce participants, especially those participants with significant barriers to employment, improving the quality of the workforce, and enhancing the productivity and competitiveness of the nation.
Mr. Pocan moved to recommit with instructions to the Committee on the Judiciary. (consideration: CR H6286-6287; text: CR H6286)
The previous question was ordered pursuant to the rule. (consideration: CR H6286)
The House rose from the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union to report H.R. 5982.
The House resolved into Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for further consideration.
Considered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H6283-6288)
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union rises leaving H.R. 5982 as unfinished business.
On motion that the Committee rise Agreed to by voice vote.
Mr. Issa moved that the Committee rise.
POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of debate on the Connolly amendments en bloc, the Chair put the question on the amendments en bloc and by voice vote, announced that the noes had prevailed. Mr. Connolly demanded a recorded vote and the Chair postponed further proceedings on agreeing to the amendments en bloc until a time to be announced.
DEBATE - Pursuant to a previous order of the Committee, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Connolly amendments en bloc.
UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST - Mr. Connolly asked unanimous consent to offer amendments numbered 4 and 5 printed in Part B of House Report 114-818 en bloc. Agreed to without objection.
POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of debate on the Jackson Lee amendment No. 3, the Chair put the question on the amendment and by voice vote, announced that the noes had prevailed. Ms. Jackson Lee demanded a recorded vote and the Chair postponed further proceedings on agreeing to the amendment until a time to be announced.
DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 921, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Jackson Lee Part B amendment No. 3.
DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 921, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Johnson (GA) Part B amendment No. 2.
POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of debate on the Conyers amendment No. 1, the Chair put the question on the amendment and by voice vote, announced that the noes had prevailed. Mr. Conyers demanded a recorded vote and the Chair postponed further proceedings on agreeing to the amendment until a time to be announced.
DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H.Res. 921, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Conyers Part B amendment No. 1.
GENERAL DEBATE - The Committee of the Whole proceeded with one hour of general debate on H.R. 5982.
The Speaker designated the Honorable Jeff Denham to act as Chairman of the Committee.
House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union pursuant to H. Res. 921 and Rule XVIII.
The rule provides for one hour of general debate on H.R. 5711 and H.R. 5982.
Considered under the provisions of rule H. Res. 921. (consideration: CR H6274-6283)
Rule H. Res. 921 passed House.
Rules Committee Resolution H. Res. 921 Reported to House. The rule provides for one hour of general debate on H.R. 5711 and H.R. 5982.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 610.
Committee on Rules discharged.
Committee on Rules discharged.
Reported by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 114-782, Part I.
Reported by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 114-782, Part I.
Ordered to be Reported by the Yeas and Nays: 15 - 5.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial And Antitrust Law.
Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Rules, 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 Rules, 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 Rules, 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.
Source last updated: Dec 5, 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.5982 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.5982 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.5982 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.5982 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.