Overview
Title
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 bill wants government agencies to use the best information they can find when making rules, and to share this information with people so everyone knows what's happening, while keeping some things secret if the law says they must.
Summary AI
The bill H. R. 7219, titled the "Information Quality Assurance Act," aims to ensure that Federal agencies use the best scientific, technical, demographic, economic, and statistical information available when developing rules and guidance. It requires agencies to update and publish their guidelines to maintain high standards of information quality and allow public access to data sources influencing rulemaking. The bill also mandates transparency by making this information available as open government data, while protecting information that cannot be disclosed due to legal restrictions.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
General Summary of the Bill
The proposed legislation, titled the "Information Quality Assurance Act," seeks to ensure that federal agencies utilize the best available scientific, technical, demographic, economic, and statistical information when developing or issuing federal rules and guidance. This includes updating guidelines to enhance the quality and transparency of influential information, which significantly impacts rulemaking or public understanding of federal policies. The bill mandates that federal agencies make relevant information publicly accessible, with specific exceptions for data restricted by law. It stresses transparency and consistency in decision-making processes within federal agencies.
Summary of Significant Issues
One of the primary concerns of the bill is the use of the term "best reasonably available information and evidence," which may lead to inconsistent application across federal agencies. Each agency might interpret this requirement differently, potentially resulting in varied standards of evidence and raising legal and political issues. Additionally, the bill's exception clauses regarding information prohibited from public disclosure could limit transparency and create ethical dilemmas.
The bill employs complex language, which could be challenging for the public to understand, undermining its intention to foster transparency. Furthermore, the timeline stipulated for updating guidelines could be insufficient, given the resources and capacities of individual agencies, possibly leading to rushed compliance. Vague directives about how agencies should improve access to information might result in minimal efforts toward transparency.
Potential Impact on the Public
The bill's impact on the public will largely depend on how it is implemented by various agencies. If correctly enacted, it could enhance transparency and ensure that federal agency policies are based on robust and objective information. This would foster public trust in governmental processes.
However, the potential for different agencies to interpret the bill inconsistently could lead to significant differences in policy application, potentially causing confusion and mistrust. The use of complex language further risks alienating those who are not well-versed in legal or bureaucratic terminology, thereby limiting effective public engagement and scrutiny.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
For federal agencies, implementing the bill could result in increased administrative burdens and costs, possibly straining resources not previously accounted for. Agencies will need to allocate time and personnel to develop, update, and publish guidelines in compliance with the new requirements.
Researchers and data providers could benefit from a more significant emphasis on high-quality evidence, increasing the demand for reliable and objective data sources. However, they might also face challenges if the ambiguity in definitions and guidelines leads to disputes over what constitutes "influential information."
In contrast, advocacy groups focused on government transparency might find both positive and negative aspects in the bill. While it aims to improve transparency, poorly defined terms and exceptions for non-disclosure could limit the ability to hold agencies accountable effectively. The overall effectiveness of the bill will hinge on how well its provisions are clarified and enforced across the federal government.
Issues
The term 'best reasonably available information and evidence' used in Section 2(b)(1) is open to interpretation by different agencies, which could result in inconsistencies when applying this guideline across various agencies. This could have significant political and legal implications if agencies differ in their standards of evidence.
Section 2(c)(2)(A)(ii) presents potential transparency issues. Information that is 'prohibited from being disclosed to the public under any statute' may lead to varying interpretations and limit public access, posing ethical concerns about the transparency of government actions.
The complex and bureaucratic language used in Section 3522, which may be difficult for the general public to understand, could undermine transparency and accessibility, limiting public engagement and understanding of government processes.
The timeline of 'not later than 1 year' for updates and implementation in Section 3522(a) might be insufficient without considering the resource capacity of each agency, leading to rushed or uneven compliance, which could be financially burdensome.
Section 2(c)(2)(B)(ii) lacks specificity regarding steps to 'increase access to such information,' resulting in minimal efforts to improve accessibility and potentially limiting the public's understanding of substantial regulatory information.
Implementing the requirements for publishing and updating guidelines on agency websites as stated in Sections 2(a)(2) and 3522(b)(2) could result in additional administrative costs and efforts that are not budgeted for, adding financial strain to agencies.
The ambiguity around the term 'influential information or evidence' in Section 3522(d)(2), determined by the agency head, may lead to subjective judgments that could affect the consistency and fairness of rulemaking across agencies.
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 proposed amendment to the United States Code adds new requirements for the Director to update guidelines ensuring the quality of influential information used by federal agencies to develop rules and guidance. It mandates public access to the sources of such information, while providing exceptions for undisclosable data, and ensures transparency in the decision-making process of federal agencies.
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.