Overview
Title
An Act To ensure that Federal agencies rely on the best reasonably available scientific, technical, demographic, economic, and statistical information and evidence to develop, issue or inform the public of the nature and bases of Federal agency rules and guidance, and for other purposes.
ELI5 AI
The Information Quality Assurance Act is a new rule that wants the people who make the rules for everyone to use the best facts and science they can find; it also says they must fix mistakes and show people the information they use unless they're not allowed to by other rules.
Summary AI
H.R. 7219, known as the “Information Quality Assurance Act”, aims to ensure that U.S. Federal agencies use the best available scientific and technical information when creating rules or informing the public. The bill requires agencies to update existing information quality guidelines, make these guidelines publicly accessible, and ensure transparency about the models and data they use. It also introduces measures to correct inaccurate information and mandates agencies to publicly disclose influential information, unless restricted by law.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
General Summary of the Bill
The proposed legislation, known as the Information Quality Assurance Act, intends to ensure that federal agencies utilize the most reliable and accurate information when creating rules and guidance. The Act outlines requirements for federal agencies to update and disclose the scientific, technical, demographic, economic, and statistical information they rely upon. This aims to enhance the quality and transparency of information disseminated to the public and involved in policy-making processes.
Summary of Significant Issues
One of the most pressing concerns is the complexity of the language used in the bill. The intricate and bureaucratic terminology may make it difficult for the average citizen to understand the bill's objectives and its impact, potentially eroding public trust. Furthermore, the bill leaves certain critical terms, like "influential information or evidence," open to interpretation. This subjectivity can lead to inconsistencies in how different federal agencies assess or implement the guidelines.
There is also an issue related to the lack of specified resources or budget for implementing the new guidelines. The absence of financial planning raises concerns over unbudgeted expenditures. Additionally, the bill allows a broad exception for public disclosure. It does not clearly resolve potential conflicts between statutes, which could result in uneven application or misuse of the law.
Moreover, the timeline for implementing guideline updates is set at one year without accounting for varying resource capacities among agencies. This could force agencies into rushed and inefficient implementations. Finally, the lack of specific accountability measures or benchmarks to evaluate the guidelines' effectiveness presents a risk of poor oversight.
Impact on the Public
The bill could positively impact public transparency by ensuring federal agencies base their rule-making and guidance issuance on well-substantiated data. If implemented effectively, it could help cultivate a better-informed public and foster trust in federal processes.
However, given the complexity of the language and the ambiguity in certain definitions, the public may find it challenging to understand how these guidelines affect them. The broad exceptions allowed for public disclosure can also lessen the transparency they aim to achieve, potentially leading to skepticism toward agency actions.
Impact on Stakeholders
For federal agencies, this bill represents an opportunity to standardize and reinforce evidence-based guidelines across all branches of the government. However, the ambiguity and complexity within the bill, coupled with the lack of specified resources and tight implementation timelines, can pose substantial operational challenges.
Policymakers and government officials may face difficulties due to potential inconsistencies in interpretation and implementation, which could result in varied approaches across different agencies.
On the other hand, stakeholders such as researchers and experts in data and evidence-based policy fields may benefit from better-defined guidelines, potentially influencing more precise and data-driven policy-making. Simultaneously, they need to be vigilant about how terms are interpreted given the potential for subjective determination of "influential information."
In summary, while the Information Quality Assurance Act aspires to enhance transparency and accountability in federal agency processes, it presents several challenges that need careful consideration to ensure it meets its objectives effectively.
Issues
The use of complex and bureaucratic language in Section 2 ('Information Quality Assurance') may reduce transparency and accessibility, making it difficult for the general public to understand the implications and specifics of the bill's guidelines, which could result in reduced trust in government processes.
There is potential ambiguity in Section 2 regarding the term 'influential information or evidence,' as its determination is left to the head of the Federal agency, which can be subjective and lead to inconsistencies between different agencies.
The bill does not explicitly outline the resources or budget required for the implementation of the proposed updates to guidelines in Section 2, raising concerns about undetailed or unbudgeted financial implications.
Section 2 includes a broad exception clause for public disclosure, where information prohibited from being disclosed under any statute is not specified about how conflicts between statutes are resolved. This could lead to inconsistent applications or potential misuse.
The timeline of 'not later than 1 year' for updates and implementation in Section 2 may be inadequate without considering resource capacity of each agency, potentially causing rushed and ineffective updates to guidelines.
The absence of specific accountability measures or benchmarks in Section 2 to assess the effectiveness of the guidelines in ensuring information quality poses a risk of ineffective implementation and lack of oversight.
The requirement to publish updates and administrative mechanisms on agency websites, as outlined in Section 2, could imply additional costs and efforts that may not have been budgeted or estimated, impacting agency resources.
Section 2 lacks a clear process for public and Federal agency involvement in updating the guidelines, potentially leading to ambiguity about stakeholder engagement and reducing public trust in the process.
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.
1. Short title Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The first section of the bill states the short title, which is "Information Quality Assurance Act."
2. Information Quality Assurance Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The "Information Quality Assurance" section updates guidelines to ensure federal agencies use reliable and accurate information when developing rules and public guidance. It requires public disclosure of scientific and statistical data used, with exceptions for confidential information, and mandates that agencies provide explanations and efforts to improve access if information cannot be disclosed.
3522. Information Quality Assurance. Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section outlines requirements for updating guidelines under the Information Quality Assurance Act to ensure the accuracy and transparency of important information used by federal agencies. It mandates public disclosure of information sources, except when prohibited by law, and requires these updates to be made available online, while also defining key terms related to the guidelines.