Bill Overview
Title: REACT Act
Description: This bill requires federal agencies to provide certain information at the request of additional congressional committees and specifies that agencies must respond to such requests within 45 days. Under current law, agencies must supply information requested by the Committee on Government Operations of the House of Representatives (or any seven of its members) or the Committee on Government Affairs of the Senate (or any five of its members), provided that the requested information relates to matters within the committees' respective jurisdictions. This bill also requires agencies to supply information requested by authorizing committees or permanent select committees.
Sponsors: Rep. Burgess, Michael C. [R-TX-26]
Target Audience
Population: Members of Congress and Federal Agencies
Estimated Size: 535
- The primary impact of the bill is on federal agencies and their employees as they are the ones who need to comply with the new requirements.
- Those who might interact with the federal agencies affected by the bill may experience indirect impacts, such as different response timelines or agency workloads.
- The bill affects operations at a federal level; thus, other governments or populations in different countries are not directly impacted.
- The target population is mainly governmental, consisting of Congress members and federal employees.
Reasoning
- The primary impact of the REACT Act is on federal agencies and their employees, as they are tasked with complying with the new requirements for timely responses to congressional committees.
- Members of Congress, especially those on authorizing and select committees, will engage directly with the policy as it affects their ability to acquire information from federal agencies efficiently.
- Secondary impacts may ripple out to private citizens or organizations that depend on agency responses, but these effects are likely indirect and less immediate. Thus, only a small, focused part of the U.S. population will perceive or measure any change in wellbeing from this bill.
- Challenges in implementing the policy might arise from the need for federal agencies to adjust their processes to meet response deadlines, potentially requiring reallocations of resources or administrative support.
- Given the restrictive budget and limited target group, the simulated interviews reflect individuals directly involved in or affected by the process who can gauge their wellbeing changes.
Simulated Interviews
Congressional Staffer (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The new policy is likely to make my work more efficient.
- Access to timely information helps us make informed decisions for legislation.
- Initially, there might be a backlog as agencies adjust to the new speed requirements.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Federal Agency Employee (Maryland)
Age: 39 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy will increase pressure on our department.
- We might need additional staff or resources to meet deadlines.
- I worry about the impact on our current workload.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Consultant for Federal Projects (Florida)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The REACT Act creates opportunities for consultancy in process optimizations.
- My business could benefit, but initial confusion might delay projects.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Congressional Researcher (Virginia)
Age: 33 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Timely access to data helps streamline our research output.
- Initially might experience delays as agencies adjust.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Federal Agency IT Specialist (California)
Age: 42 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- New policy necessitates IT solutions for quicker information dissemination.
- There's potential for innovation, but the transition might be tough.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Journalist Covering Federal and Government News (Illinois)
Age: 47 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This new accountability can improve transparency and timeliness in news.
- Might struggle with information access initially as everyone adapts.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Lobbyist (Texas)
Age: 38 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Speedier responses could enhance legislative strategies.
- Policy may complicate initial communication flows.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Policy Analyst (New York)
Age: 54 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Increased transparency often leads to better public trust.
- May require initial adjustments internally within agencies.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Federal Agency Project Manager (Georgia)
Age: 36 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Changing timelines may alter project delivery cycles.
- Potential for improved project tracking, but needs adaptation.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Retired Federal Employee (Ohio)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Retrospective viewpoint: this would have increased job pressure.
- Could benefit current employees' efficiency and morale eventually.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $32000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $40000000)
Year 2: $32000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $40000000)
Year 3: $32000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $40000000)
Year 5: $32000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $40000000)
Year 10: $32000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $40000000)
Year 100: $32000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $40000000)
Key Considerations
- Ensuring coordinated implementation across all federal agencies to prevent compliance failure.
- Identifying which agency divisions will require the most additional resources and planning accordingly.
- Balancing new obligations with existing workload to maintain efficiency.