Information Quality Assurance Act

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 7219) 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, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on this measure.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill, the Information Quality Assurance Act. Each year, thousands of regulations are imposed as an added burden on the American public. The Code of Federal Regulations, in which these rules are housed, spans 243 volumes that contain over 180,000 single-spaced pages. Agency guidance explaining these regulations to the public likely spans millions more pages.

If we must have rules imposed by Federal regulatory agencies, we should, at the very least, ensure that regulatory agencies rely on the best available information. Unfortunately, agencies frequently do not rely on the best available information to create their regulations.

Year after year, the Federal courts are clogged with litigation brought by regulated parties who point out that Federal agencies have acted based on flawed information. Over the years, Congress has tried to improve the situation.

In 2000, Congress enacted the Information Quality Act, which charged the Office of Management and Budget and each Federal agency to adopt guidelines to ensure agencies rely on high-quality information.

In 2015, Congress enacted the Foundations of Evidence-Based Policymaking Act, expanding on the Information Quality Act to further ensure agencies use high-quality information.

Still, disputes continue to arise over whether regulators are basing their decisions on the best quality information available. Every year, courts strike down agency rules that do not rely on adequate information. Every year, agency guidance that does not rely on the best information forces regulated parties down pathways that do not make sense.

The Information Quality Assurance Act takes several major but straightforward steps to solve that problem. For the first time, it requires that the information on which agencies rest their rules and guidance be the best reasonably available information. It also includes several additional terms to make sure agencies are finally held to that standard.

This legislation will improve the quality of agency decisionmaking, improve the acceptability of new rules and guidance, and avoid the need for many disputes over agencies' use of information to go to court.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill. I thank Representative McClain and Representative Porter for their work on this important bipartisan legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for making that mistake so that when I make it here in a few bills, it will be easier for me.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. McClain).

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill to ensure that agencies rely on the best reasonably available information to create their regulations.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Comment Integrity and Management Act.

Technological advances have expanded access to Federal agencies' online rulemaking dockets and have made it easier for the public to comment on proposed rules. That is a very

good thing from the standpoint of transparency, accountability, and deliberation.

At the same time, in some recent high-profile rulemakings, agencies have received an extraordinarily high volume of completely duplicative comments, which has created some challenges for agencies in processing them and managing their online rulemaking dockets.

I am sure Members are familiar with receiving a standardized message hundreds or even thousands of times from constituents or people across the country.

This bill is designed to help agencies manage such mass comments and computer-generated comments submitted in response to proposed rules. It is not intended in any way to discourage mass comments, which are indeed a vital part of the regulatory process. The bill would simply allow agencies to post a representative sample of mass comments. If they choose to do that, they would also be required to post the number--hold that thought, if you would, Mr. Speaker. I was describing the next bill. Forgive me. We got our papers confused here. Keep that in mind. I like that one, too.

The Information Quality Assurance Act is bipartisan legislation introduced by Representatives Porter and McClain. I commend them for their work on it.

It would require the Director of OMB to update guidance issued under the Information Quality Act. That guidance is more than 20 years old, and much work has been done by Congress and the executive branch on these issues in the interim. The Evidence-Based Policymaking Act, the DATA Act, and the OPEN Government Act are just a few new laws requiring updated guidance.

Updated guidance would enable agencies to better ensure the quality of information and evidence used in promulgating regulations. The new guidance would ensure that the best reasonably available scientific, demographic, economic, financial, and statistical information is relied on during the regulatory process.

The bill also continues the practices of the Information Quality Act that allow for public input on the information submitted and mechanisms for OMB to report any complaints to Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the majority for working closely with us and the administration in crafting this bill. The result is strong, and I fully support it.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time for closing.

Despite the fact that I didn't know we were on this bill originally, we are in very strong and unanimous support on our side of the aisle for this, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be the sponsor of H.R. 7219, the Information Quality Assurance Act. I also thank Representative Katie Porter for partnering with me on this important piece of legislation.

From my time in business, I can tell you that American employers and workers cannot afford for the Federal Government to impose new regulations and guidance on them that are misinformed, misconceived, and, quite frankly, backed by bad data.

Regulations like that only harm the American people. They needlessly drain employers' resources, kill jobs, and cede economic victory to America's other competitors, like China.

The same can be said of ill-informed and ill-conceived agency guidance. When an agency's guidance rests on flawed information, it risks sending regulated parties and their resources down rabbit holes just to avoid the threat of misguided agency enforcement actions.

One of the most important ways we can make sure the Federal Government does not issue ill-informed regulations and guidance is also, quite frankly, one of the simplest. It is to require that Federal regulators base new regulations and guidance on the best reasonably available information.

My Information Quality Assurance Act does just that. It requires three simple things.

First and foremost, it requires agencies to use the best data possible in drafting regulations. This includes data on the impacts the regulation will have on the American people.

Second, it requires the agency to make public, in a timely fashion, any model, methodology, or source of scientific, technical, demographic, economic, or statistical information which it intends to utilize in its rulemaking.

Third, it makes sure the public has a chance to question whether that information is the best that is reasonably available.

With these three simple commonsense reforms, we can make sure the Federal regulatory system avoids a mountain of mistakes that would unfairly burden the American people. That is what our job in Congress truly is: making the government more efficient so that we can help the most people.

By making these three simple changes to how agencies utilize data, we can achieve that simple goal and make life better for people in this country.

It is clear my colleagues on the other side of the aisle agree. This bill passed through the Oversight Committee--be careful to listen for it--with unanimous bipartisan support. That is the kind of thing this country needs right now.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to lead this bipartisan bill to improve the way our government works for generations to come, and I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, unfortuately, due to a district commitment, I was unable to cast two votes today. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 177, suspend the rules and pass H.R. 7219-- Information Quality Assurance Act; and YEA on Roll Call No. 178, suspend the rules and pass H.R. 7525--Special District Grant Accessibility Act.

Mr. Speaker, due to events in California, I was unfortunately unable to cast my vote for legislation considered on the House floor today.

Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on roll call No. 177, H.R. 7219--Information Quality Assurance Act; and YEA on roll call No. 178, H.R. 7525--Special District Grant Accessibility Act.