PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Feb 13, 2017
Federal Executive Accountability Act of 2017
This bill requires the President to appoint an Inspector General of the Executive Office of the President. Such Inspector General shall be under the authority, direction, and control of the President with respect to audits, investigations, or the issuance of subpoenas that require access to information concerning the identity of a confidential source, an intelligence or counterintelligence matter, and an undercover operation. The President may prohibit such Inspector General from carrying out any audit or investigation or issuing any subpoena upon determining that such prohibition is necessary to prevent the disclosure of any such information.
The bill amends the Inspector General Act of 1978 to require the Inspector General established by this bill to include the following additional information in its required semiannual report to the head of its establishment:
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
a description of corrective action completed on each significant recommendation;
a certification of whether such Inspector General has had full and direct access to all information relevant to the performance of its functions;
a description of any audit, inspection, or evaluation occurring during the reporting period in which such Inspector General could not obtain relevant information due to an exercise of presidential power; and
any recommendations regarding efficiency in the administration of programs and operations undertaken by the President and the detection and elimination of fraud, waste, and abuse.
Such Inspector General shall carry out two evaluations of the Executive Office of the President to: (1) assess whether applicable classification procedures have been followed within such office; and (2) identify policies and procedures that may be contributing to persistent misclassification of material within such office.
People & committees
Rep. DeLauro, Rosa L. [D-CT-3] · D–CT
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 11, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.1016 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.1016 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.1016 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.1016 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.