Bill Overview
Title: REPORTS Act
Description: This bill requires federal agencies, when publishing notice of a proposed major rule, to include an analysis of the rule's potential impact on low-income individuals and racial inequity. The Government Accountability Office must annually report on the impact of certain programs on low-income individuals and racial inequity.
Sponsors: Rep. Williams, Nikema [D-GA-5]
Target Audience
Population: Low-income individuals and racially marginalized groups
Estimated Size: 140000000
- The bill mandates federal agencies to include analyses on the potential impact of major rules on low-income individuals.
- The bill also addresses the impact on racial inequity, which affects various racial and ethnic groups in the US and abroad where US policies might have an influence.
- Low-income populations worldwide are estimated at about 700 million, considering international low-income thresholds.
- Racially marginalized communities globally could amount to significant portions given global populations and histories of systemic discrimination.
- The policies will primarily affect US citizens, but considerations and influences could apply globally due to the reach of US federal policies.
Reasoning
- The REPORTS Act focuses primarily on identifying and addressing the impacts of federal rules on low-income individuals and racial inequity. Consequently, the primary beneficiaries of this policy are likely to be individuals from minority ethnic communities and those with low incomes.
- Given the budget constraints, the policy will likely prioritize high-impact areas with significant low-income and minority populations to yield maximum benefits from the limited resources.
- Not all individuals will be directly impacted as some federal regulations might have minimal to no relevance to certain demographic or economic brackets.
- There's a need to consider urban versus rural settings, as urban areas might have a higher concentration of diverse ethnic groups, while rural areas could have different socio-economic challenges.
- The impact might also vary based on occupational sectors since some industries are more heavily regulated, and individuals employed in these sectors might see more significant benefits from policy changes.
Simulated Interviews
Community Organizer (Chicago, IL)
Age: 32 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I often feel overlooked by policies that are supposed to help people like me.
- This policy sounds promising as it actually considers the impact on low-income and racial minorities.
- I hope it leads to more inclusive and equitable federal rules.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Small Business Owner (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Rules often create bureaucratic nightmares for small business owners like myself.
- If this policy simplifies understanding and compliance, it would be a significant relief.
- I'm cautiously optimistic.
- A focus on equity could improve opportunities for minority-owned businesses.
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 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Tech Industry Worker (New York, NY)
Age: 29 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm not sure how much this policy will directly impact my day-to-day life.
- The tech industry moves fast and often skirts around federal rules.
- Knowing that there is a focus on equity could influence the industry positively in the long run.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Farmer (Rural Alabama)
Age: 52 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I live in a rural area, and policies often neglect communities like mine.
- I hope this kind of initiative includes rural voices and challenges.
- Environmental rules can be especially burdensome in my line of work.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Retired (Detroit, MI)
Age: 66 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Being on a fixed income, any policy that could stabilize costs benefits me.
- The focus on racial inequity is crucial; I've lived through enough to know its value.
- Hoping for healthcare provisions within these analyses.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
College Student (Houston, TX)
Age: 23 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Educational policy impacts me profoundly, particularly regarding grants and loans.
- If the policy shifts these areas to be more inclusive, that could be life-changing.
- I'm worried about my loans and managing school costs.
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 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Construction Worker (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Regulations greatly influence construction work, impacting safety and wages.
- I hope this policy ensures fair treatment and better conditions for workers.
- Skeptical about significant immediate changes but hopeful for the long term.
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 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Healthcare Worker (Miami, FL)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Healthcare policies affect access to services, which is critical.
- This policy could improve healthcare equity, especially for immigrant populations.
- Many people in my community struggle with accessing healthcare.
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 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
IT Specialist (Seattle, WA)
Age: 41 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I appreciate the environmental focus in many policies and would like to see it backed by equity considerations.
- This policy might indirectly affect environmental policies, which I support.
- Federal rules intersect with tech in unpredictable ways.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Unemployed (Newark, NJ)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 6.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Federal policies often miss the nuances of immigrant needs and challenges.
- I hope this policy means more relevant rules and better access to job training or opportunities.
- Racial equity needs more government focus.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $70000000)
Year 2: $52000000 (Low: $31000000, High: $72000000)
Year 3: $54000000 (Low: $32000000, High: $74000000)
Year 5: $58000000 (Low: $34000000, High: $78000000)
Year 10: $70000000 (Low: $42000000, High: $92000000)
Year 100: $120000000 (Low: $72000000, High: $150000000)
Key Considerations
- Costs and savings estimates depend on the size and complexity of the rules being assessed by the agencies.
- The capacity of agencies to absorb new tasks without significantly increasing headcount will affect the overall cost.
- Possible need for legislative or regulatory adjustments to facilitate smoother implementation of the bill's requirements.
- Broader impact on decision-making processes in agencies could further extend into indirect effects on government efficiency and public benefits.