PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Mar 1, 1999
Regulatory Fair Warning Act of 1999 - Prohibits a Federal agency or court from imposing a sanction for a violation of a rule if the agency or court finds any one of the following: (1) the rule was not printed in the Code of Federal Regulations or in the Federal Register, was not known to the person, or was not knowable to a person who has engaged in a reasonable, good faith investigation of the rules applicable to the conduct that allegedly violated the rule; (2) the rule failed to give the person fair warning of the conduct that it prohibits or requires; or (3) with respect only to a retrospective sanction, the person acted in reasonable reliance upon written representations about what the rule prohibits or requires which were issued by the agency or an official with actual or apparent authority to interpret, administer, or enforce the rule.
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.
Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E299-300)
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 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.881 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.881 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.881 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.881 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.