Latest action: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Referred to one or more standing committees for review, hearings, and possible markup.
Specific committees not parsed from action data.
The committee may hold hearings, amend the bill, or let it die without action.
Next: Reported
Full chamber floor — Speaker / Majority Leader controls scheduling
Bill requiring federal agencies to follow stricter procedures when creating new rules.
The problem
Some argue federal agencies create rules without enough public input or Congressional oversight, potentially harming businesses and individuals affected by regulations.
The proposal
Establishes new requirements for agencies to review costs, benefits, and alternatives before finalizing major rules and increases Congressional ability to reject regulations.
The impact
Affects federal agencies, businesses, workers, and citizens by changing how new workplace, environmental, and consumer protection rules are created and approved.
Increased requirements for agencies to hear from the public and consider different viewpoints before finalizing rules. This could lead to better decisions that account for real-world concerns.
Businesses may face fewer or less costly regulations if agencies must prove rules are necessary. Companies could have more predictability and lower compliance costs.
Congress gains tools to review and reject regulations it views as problematic. This increases elected representatives' control over rule-making.
Agencies must demonstrate that benefits of rules outweigh costs. This could prevent wasteful regulations while preserving important protections.
New procedures and reviews take time, delaying rules protecting workers, consumers, or the environment. Public health or safety issues might not be addressed quickly enough.
Stricter approval processes could prevent agencies from issuing tough environmental or safety regulations. Industries might lobby successfully against needed protections.
Congress rejecting regulations could create conflicts between branches of government. Emergency or technical rules might get caught in political battles.
Large agencies with resources can handle complex reviews better than small ones. Some agencies might be unable to issue necessary rules.
Generated by AI from the bill text. Not a prediction and not legal or policy advice. The percentage is the model's own rating of each item — self-reported, and not a measure of how accurate it is.
Loading map…
Loading...
0 citizens have already voted
Free · No spam · See how your representatives voted
Be the first to weigh in
Your vote starts the conversation
How citizen engagement works
Citizens vote & comment
Public opinion data is aggregated and updated in real time.
Patterns become visible
Representatives can see constituent sentiment broken down by district.
Your voice on the record
Contact your rep directly — one constituent call can shift a staffer's priority list.
Research shows that constituent contacts — especially calls — are among the most effective ways to influence a legislator's position on active bills.
Other bills in this policy area
SRES 929
A resolution expressing the sense of the Senate regarding equity stakes held by the Federal Government in private companies.
HR 5235
Skills-Based Federal Contracting Act of 2025
HR 2332
SHARE Act of 2026
HR 9191
National Fossil Act of 2026
Individual contributions, grouped by employer · FEC
Where their individual donors work · 2026 cycle
Money from people who work there, not from the company. Not tied to this bill.
Itemized individual contributions via FEC, grouped by the employer each contributor self-reported. Companies and unions cannot contribute to federal candidates from their treasuries, so these totals are money from people who work at an employer — never from the organization itself. They are campaign contributions covering a full election cycle and are not connected to this bill.
Senate LDA lobbying disclosures
Couldn't load lobbying disclosures right now.