REPORTS Act
📝 TL;DR
The REPORTS Act would require federal agencies to analyze how their major new regulations affect poverty and racial inequality before implementation, and mandate that GAO produce annual reports for ten years examining existing federal programs through the same equity lens. This creates new bureaucratic requirements aimed at making government more accountable for distributional impacts on vulnerable populations.
Standard Analysis
The REPORTS Act (H.R. 10562) is a government accountability measure that would require federal agencies to analyze how their major regulations affect poverty and racial inequality before implementing them. Introduced in December 2024 by Rep. Nikema Williams of Georgia and eleven cosponsors, the bill mandates that whenever agencies propose significant new rules, they must publish studies examining the potential impact on low-income individuals and racial equity. The legislation also establishes a ten-year requirement for the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to produce annual reports analyzing existing federal programs and policies through the same lens of poverty and racial equity impacts. This represents an effort to institutionalize equity considerations into federal rulemaking and program evaluation, requiring government agencies to explicitly consider distributional effects of their actions on vulnerable populations.
Detailed Analysis
The REPORTS Act operates through two primary mechanisms designed to embed poverty and racial equity analysis into federal operations. Section 2(a) creates a mandatory requirement that applies to all 'major rules' as defined under existing federal law (5 U.S.C. § 804), which typically includes regulations with economic impacts exceeding $100 million annually. This provision transforms the rulemaking process by requiring agencies to conduct and publish impact analyses alongside their standard Federal Register notices, effectively making equity considerations a formal part of regulatory review rather than an optional consideration. The second mechanism, outlined in Section 2(b), establishes a systematic review process through the GAO that will examine 2-5 existing government programs annually over a ten-year period, focusing on those with 'substantial economic impact' as determined by the Comptroller General. This backward-looking analysis complements the forward-looking regulatory requirements, creating a comprehensive system for both prospective and retrospective equity evaluation. The bill's definitional framework in Section 2(d) is notably flexible, allowing the Office of Management and Budget to define key terms like 'poverty line,' 'racial inequity,' and 'racial wealth gap' for regulatory analyses, while giving the GAO similar definitional authority for its reports. This approach provides implementation flexibility but may also create consistency challenges across different agencies and time periods. The legislation specifically makes racial wealth gap analysis optional under Section 2(c), suggesting recognition that this metric may be more complex or controversial than basic poverty and inequity measures.
🎯 Key Provisions
Mandatory Poverty and Racial Equity Analysis for Major Rules: Requires all federal agencies to publish analyses of how proposed major regulations will impact individuals living at, near, or below the poverty line and affect racial inequity. This analysis must accompany the standard Federal Register notice for proposed rulemaking. (Section 2(a) - 'Whenever an agency publishes notice of proposed rule making in the Federal Register for a major rule, the agency shall, with such notice, publish an analysis of the actual or potential impact of the major rule on-- (1) individuals living at, near, or below the poverty line; and (2) racial inequity.')
Ten-Year GAO Reporting Requirement: Establishes a decade-long mandate for the Government Accountability Office to produce annual electronic reports examining 2-5 existing federal programs or policies with substantial economic impact, analyzing their effects on poverty and racial equity. (Section 2(b) - 'During the calendar year in which the date that is one year after the date of enactment of this Act falls, and during each of the following nine calendar years, the Comptroller General shall publish an electronic report on between two and five Government programs or policies with a substantial economic impact')
Optional Racial Wealth Gap Analysis: Allows but does not require agencies and GAO to include analysis of impacts on the racial wealth gap in their reports and regulatory analyses, providing discretionary authority to agency heads and the Comptroller General. (Section 2(c) - 'An analysis under subsection (a) or a report under subsection (b) may, at the discretion of the applicable agency head or the Comptroller General (as the case may be), include an analysis of the actual or potential impact... on the racial wealth gap.')
Flexible Definitional Framework: Grants definitional authority to OMB for regulatory analyses and to GAO for its reports, allowing these entities to define key terms including 'poverty line,' 'racial inequity,' and 'racial wealth gap' as they consider appropriate. (Section 2(d)(3) - 'the terms "poverty line", "racial inequity", and "racial wealth gap", shall-- (A) for purposes of an analysis under subsection (a), be defined as considered appropriate by the Director of the Office of Management and Budget; and (B) for purposes of a report under subsection (b), be defined as considered appropriate by the Comptroller General.')
Integration with Existing Regulatory Framework: Builds upon existing federal definitions by referencing established meanings for 'agency' and 'major rule' from Title 5 of the U.S. Code, ensuring consistency with current administrative law while adding new analytical requirements. (Section 2(d)(1)-(2) - 'the term "agency" has the meaning given that term in section 551 of title 5, United States Code; the term "major rule" has the meaning given that term in section 804 of such title 5')
Comprehensive Impact Scope: Requires analysis of both 'actual or potential' impacts, ensuring that agencies must consider not only demonstrated effects but also reasonably foreseeable consequences of their actions on vulnerable populations. (Throughout Section 2(a) and 2(b) - references to 'actual or potential impact' appear consistently in both regulatory analysis and GAO reporting requirements)
👥 Impact Analysis
Direct Effects The most immediate effect would be a significant expansion of the federal rulemaking process timeline and complexity. Federal agencies would need to develop new analytical capabilities and methodologies to assess poverty and racial equity impacts, likely requiring additional staff expertise in economics, sociology, and demographic analysis. This could slow the pace of new major regulations as agencies work to comply with the new analytical requirements. The GAO would also need to allocate substantial resources to produce annual reports over the ten-year period, examining dozens of federal programs through an equity lens. The legislation would create a new body of government-produced research on the distributional effects of federal policies, potentially influencing future policy debates and providing ammunition for both critics and defenders of various programs. These analyses could also become focal points for litigation, as affected parties might challenge regulations based on inadequate poverty or racial equity analysis.
Indirect Effects Over time, the requirement for systematic equity analysis could fundamentally shift how federal agencies approach policymaking, embedding distributional considerations into routine decision-making processes. This could lead to more equitable policy outcomes even beyond what the specific analyses reveal, as agencies anticipate and design around potential negative impacts on vulnerable populations. The legislation might also influence state and local governments to adopt similar analytical requirements. However, the flexible definitional framework could create inconsistencies across agencies and time periods, potentially undermining the comparability and utility of different analyses. There's also risk that agencies might game the system by defining terms in ways that minimize apparent negative impacts, or that the analyses could become perfunctory compliance exercises rather than meaningful policy tools.
Affected Groups - Federal regulatory agencies - Low-income individuals and families - Racial and ethnic minority communities - Government Accountability Office - Office of Management and Budget - Regulated industries and businesses - Civil rights organizations - Policy researchers and academics - Legal practitioners in administrative law
Fiscal Impact The bill does not specify funding mechanisms or authorize specific appropriations for implementation. The fiscal impact would primarily fall on existing agency budgets and GAO operations, requiring agencies to redirect resources toward conducting the mandated analyses. Costs would include personnel expenses for economists and policy analysts, data collection and analysis, report preparation and publication, and potential consulting services for specialized expertise. The GAO's annual reporting requirement over ten years represents a particularly significant unfunded mandate. While the bill doesn't provide cost estimates, similar analytical requirements in the past have required millions of dollars in implementation costs across the federal government. Agencies might need to request additional appropriations through the normal budget process, and compliance costs could potentially slow other agency priorities if adequate resources aren't provided.
📋 Latest Action
12/27/2024
Referred to the Committee on Oversight and Accountability, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.