Overview
Title
To require certain agencies to develop plans for internal control in the event of an emergency or crisis, and for other purposes.
ELI5 AI
The bill is like telling certain parts of the government to have a special plan for what to do if there's an emergency, so they don’t lose money by accident or let bad guys steal it. They have to make sure the plan is ready before they start spending on emergency stuff.
Summary AI
The bill S. 78, also known as the “Taxpayer Resources Used in Emergencies Accountability Act” or the "TRUE Accountability Act," requires certain federal agencies to develop plans for internal controls in case of emergencies or crises. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is tasked with issuing guidance to these agencies on creating such plans within 180 days. The plans must address risks of improper payments and fraud during emergency funding situations and include measures to ensure appropriate controls before spending funds. The bill also mandates regular reviews and revisions of the guidance and plans but does not authorize additional funds to implement these requirements.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
General Summary of the Bill
The proposed legislation, known as the "Taxpayer Resources Used in Emergencies Accountability Act" or "TRUE Accountability Act," aims to enhance the readiness of certain federal agencies by mandating the development of comprehensive internal control plans for emergencies and crises. This initiative requires the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to guide these agencies in crafting plans that mitigate risks such as improper payments and fraud, particularly in the context of emergency appropriations. The bill sets deadlines for the creation and review of these plans and requires their periodic submission to Congress.
Summary of Significant Issues
The bill presents several notable issues. Firstly, it restricts the option for judicial review, which might limit avenues for accountability and transparency. This means that individuals or organizations cannot challenge decisions taken by the OMB Director or agency heads regarding this matter in court. Additionally, the absence of allocated funds to implement these directives could impede effective adoption and oversight of the plans. The broad interpretation of "internal control" may lead to inconsistent applications across various agencies, potentially affecting their preparedness levels.
Furthermore, the lack of prescribed metrics for assessing the plans' success could introduce ambiguity in their enforcement and effectiveness. While agencies are required to submit plans to Congress, there's no clear path outlined for Congress to take corrective actions if those plans are found lacking. Lastly, the requirement for periodic review and updates could devolve into a bureaucratic formality without genuine improvements in emergency readiness.
Impact on the Public and Specific Stakeholders
The bill's broader public impact revolves around enhancing government readiness and accountability in times of crisis, which could lead to more efficient use of taxpayer resources. By aiming to preemptively address fraud and improper payments, the bill seeks to protect public funds. However, the limitations on judicial review could instill concern among those valuing transparency and administrative checks.
For specific stakeholders, notably the federal agencies identified by the bill, there is a dual impact. On one side, the requirement to develop such detailed control plans might improve operational effectiveness and increase agency accountability. On the other hand, the absence of additional funding represents a potential strain on resources, which might shift focus away from their primary missions during crises. Congress, as a key stakeholder, may find its role limited to merely receiving and reviewing plans without an active mechanism for enforcement or oversight corrections.
Overall, while the bill is well-intentioned in promoting fiscal responsibility and crisis preparedness, the outlined issues suggest room for improvement, particularly in provisions for accountability and resource allocation.
Issues
The unavailability of judicial review (Section 2, subsection d) may limit accountability and transparency, preventing individuals or organizations from seeking a judicial remedy against decisions made by the Director or agency heads, potentially leading to unchecked administrative action.
The lack of authorization for additional funds (Section 2, subsection e) could hinder the effective implementation and oversight of the internal control plans, leading to inadequate resources to address the provisions outlined in the bill.
The broad and potentially inconsistent interpretation of 'internal control' (Section 2, subsection a(3)) across different agencies could lead to varying levels of preparedness and effectiveness in crisis situations.
The absence of specific metrics or measures of success and compliance (Section 2, subsection b) in the guidance issued could result in ambiguities regarding the effectiveness and enforcement of the internal control plans.
The bill requires agencies to submit plans to Congress but does not specify remedial actions (Section 2, subsection c(3)), potentially leaving Congress without a clear mechanism for addressing insufficient plans.
The requirement to review and revise plans and guidance every three years (Section 2, subsections b(3) and c(2)) might become a bureaucratic formality without ensuring genuine improvement or accountability in emergency preparedness.
The definition of 'covered agency' relies on an external statutory reference (Section 2, subsection a(1)), which could create confusion about the scope of agencies affected without additional research.
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 section states that the official title of the Act is the “Taxpayer Resources Used in Emergencies Accountability Act” or simply the “TRUE Accountability Act”.
2. OMB Guidance Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section outlines that the Director of the Office of Management and Budget must issue guidance for government agencies on creating internal control plans for use in emergencies, including measures to manage risks of improper payments and fraud. It also states that these plans must be reviewed and submitted periodically but can't be challenged in court, and no extra funds are provided for this purpose.