Overview
Title
An Act to amend title 31, United States Code, to require agencies to include a list of outdated or duplicative reporting requirements in annual budget justifications, and for other purposes.
ELI5 AI
The bill wants to help government workers use less paper by finding which reports are old or repeated and maybe stopping or changing how they get done. The goal is to make the government work better and faster by talking to different groups and deciding what's really needed.
Summary AI
S. 2073, titled the "Eliminate Useless Reports Act of 2024," aims to streamline government reporting requirements. It directs federal agencies to review and identify outdated or duplicative reports, suggesting whether these reports should be discontinued, modified, or submitted less frequently. The bill also requires agencies to consult with other relevant agencies in this process and mandates that updated information be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget. This is part of an effort to reduce unnecessary paperwork and improve governmental efficiency.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
The United States Congress is considering a bill entitled the "Eliminate Useless Reports Act of 2024," aimed at improving efficiency in government operations. The bill seeks to amend Title 31 of the United States Code to mandate federal agencies to identify and list outdated or duplicative reporting requirements within their annual budget justifications. Importantly, this bill endeavors to streamline the reporting processes that agencies must perform, potentially reducing unnecessary administrative burdens and increasing transparency.
General Summary of the Bill
This legislative proposal offers a structured approach for federal agencies to review and recommend the dismissal or modification of recurring reports considered outdated or redundant. Agencies would be required to consult with any other entity involved in creating these reports to agree on which reports fall within the bill's scope. Additionally, the bill proposes a mechanism for agencies to provide justifications and recommendations aligned with these reviews to the Office of Management and Budget and further to Congress. The expectation is for these procedural adjustments to become part of their budget planning discourse, enhancing decision-making and resource allocation.
Significant Issues
Several issues arise from the bill that could impact its effectiveness. A primary concern is the lack of specific criteria defining what constitutes an "outdated or duplicative" report, leaving room for subjective interpretations and inconsistent agency applications. Moreover, the inclusion of the open-ended phrase "and for other purposes" in the bill's title creates uncertainty about the broader implications or hidden objectives of the legislation.
Another issue is the absence of a robust oversight mechanism to ensure that the recommendations from agencies result in legislative action or policy enhancements. This could lead to reports being identified but no tangible follow-up, undermining the bill's intention. Additionally, the set timelines for electronic report submissions and guidance updates are viewed as arbitrary and may not reflect the capacities or priorities of involved agencies, adding potential administrative burdens without clear benefits.
Potential Public Impact
For the general public, this bill might seem abstract, given its technical nature, but it could have significant implications for government transparency and accountability. By potentially reducing unnecessary paperwork and reports, the bill promises to make government operations more efficient, ultimately benefiting taxpayers. Less time spent on redundant tasks could translate into greater focus on delivering essential services and addressing public needs.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
For government agencies, this bill could be a mixed bag. On one hand, it could significantly reduce the workload associated with repetitive or unnecessary reporting requirements, allowing focus shifts toward more critical tasks. On the other hand, agencies might face confusion or conflicts over determining which reports are outdated without clear guidelines, possibly leading to internal disputes or reduced oversight.
Congress, while benefitting from potentially clearer and more focused reports, might also grapple with assessing the implications of these changes. Policymakers would need to ensure that streamlining does not come at the expense of losing valuable oversight information necessary for informed decision-making.
Overall, the potential benefits of the bill will largely depend on how ambiguities are clarified and on the robust implementation of its provisions. Special attention will be needed to ensure that efficiency gains do not inadvertently lead to diminished accountability and transparency in government operations.
Issues
The bill lacks specifics about what constitutes 'outdated or duplicative reporting requirements,' leading to potential ambiguity in implementation. This could result in inconsistent application across different agencies. (Section: General Issues)
The term 'outdated or duplicative' in the context of agency reports is subjective and lacks specific criteria for determination, which may lead to inconsistent interpretations and disputes among agencies. (Section 2(a), 2(b))
The purpose of the phrase 'and for other purposes' is vague in the bill's title, leaving room for broad interpretations that are not clearly defined, potentially affecting the bill's scope and execution. (General Issues, Section 1)
There is no clear mechanism or oversight provided to ensure that agency recommendations to sunset, modify, consolidate, or reduce the frequency of reports lead to action or consideration by Congress, which might affect legislative priorities. (Section 2(b))
The timelines laid out for submission of electronic copies of reports (30 to 60 days) and OMB guidance (180 days) seem arbitrary and not clearly aligned with legislative priorities or agency capabilities, creating potential administrative burdens. (Section 2(c))
The requirement to submit recommendations and justifications to the Director of the Government Publishing Office as per section 7244 may add administrative burdens on agencies without clear additional value. (Section 2(b))
The language and terminology used throughout the section may be technical and difficult for the average reader to understand, limiting transparency and public engagement. (Section 2(a), 2(b))
The risk exists that by identifying reports as outdated or duplicative, important oversight functions might be reduced inadvertently, affecting accountability and transparency. (Section 2(b))
Sections
Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.
Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The bill from the Senate (S. 2073) proposes changes to Title 31 of the United States Code. It aims to require government agencies to list outdated or duplicate reporting requirements when they submit their annual budget justifications.
1. Short title Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The first section of this act establishes its official name: the "Eliminate Useless Reports Act of 2024".
2. Sunsets for agency reports Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
This section of the bill amends existing U.S. law to streamline how government agencies report to Congress by identifying and recommending changes to outdated or duplicated reports. Agencies must include these recommendations in their budget justifications and collaborate with other agencies if necessary, ensuring transparency through online publications, while not exempting them from any current reporting obligations.