PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
Congressional Research Service
No official summary is available in the imported record yet.
People & committees
Rep. Burchett, Tim [R-TN-2] · R–TN
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 also preserved the text version used in the PlainBill explanation below.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Oct 5, 2026. 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.10535 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.10535 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.10535 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.10535 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.
PlainBill explanation
Based on the full Introduced in House · 2026-09-24 text. This explanation has not received human editorial review. This overview describes the proposal’s major provisions; it does not establish what its real-world effects would be.
The proposed Paperwork Reduction Modernization Act of 2026 would require federal agencies to evaluate ways to reduce the burden on people providing information to or for agencies. It would add a standard that information collection be the least burdensome necessary. The Director would also have to require recurring agency reviews to identify unnecessary collections, opportunities to reduce burdens, and duplication across agencies.
This Act may be cited as the Paperwork Reduction Modernization Act of 2026.
evaluate alternatives that would reduce the burden on persons who shall provide information to or for the agency
is the least burdensome necessary to obtain the information
the Director shall require each agency to review the collections of information of the agency and identify any such collections that— (1) are unnecessary or no longer necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency; (2) can be modified to reduce burden; or (3) duplicate a collection of information conducted or sponsored by another agency.
The bill would amend federal agency responsibilities in title 44, section 3506, to require evaluation of less burdensome alternatives. These include using data already obtained by the same or another agency, electronic collection methods, and statistical sampling.
Section 3506 of title 44, United States Code, is amended
(v) evaluate alternatives that would reduce the burden on persons who shall provide information to or for the agency, including the use of data already obtained by the agency or another agency, electronic collection methods, and statistical sampling;
The bill would add a requirement that information collection be the least burdensome necessary to obtain the information. The agency's evaluation of alternatives would have to support that determination.
(K) is the least burdensome necessary to obtain the information, as supported by the evaluation of alternatives described in paragraph (2)(A)(v);
Within 18 months after enactment of the new subsection, and every three years thereafter, the official called the “Director” would have to require each agency to review its information collections. This timing applies to the Director requiring reviews; the added language does not expressly set a separate deadline for agencies to complete them.
(j) Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of this subsection, and every 3 years thereafter, the Director shall require each agency to review the collections of information of the agency
Those reviews would identify information collections that are unnecessary or no longer necessary for an agency's functions, could be changed to reduce burdens, or duplicate a collection conducted or sponsored by another agency. The added language requires identification; it does not itself direct agencies to eliminate or change every collection identified.
identify any such collections that— (1) are unnecessary or no longer necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency; (2) can be modified to reduce burden; or (3) duplicate a collection of information conducted or sponsored by another agency.
The supplied official-actions snapshot, updated October 5, 2026, records introduction in the House and referral to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on September 24, 2026.
Source snapshot updated 2026-10-05T20:04:42Z. 2026-09-24: Referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. 2026-09-24: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2026-09-24. These findings describe provisions and who may benefit; they are not judgments of waste, corruption, or motive.
This review covers the supplied bill text. “None identified” does not rule out provisions in later versions or accompanying reports and disclosures.
Provisions outside the bill’s main subject, or policy changes attached to appropriations.
None identified in the reviewed text
No unrelated provision or policy change attached to appropriations was identified after reviewing the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Spending directed to particular recipients or places outside ordinary competitive or formula-based allocation.
None identified in the reviewed text
No congressionally directed spending for particular recipients or places was identified after reviewing the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
None identified in the reviewed text
No materially narrow carve-out, special exemption, preferential treatment, or exception was identified after reviewing the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Oct 5, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI