PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 363.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jul 22, 2010
Inspector General Authority Improvement Act of 2010 - Amends the Inspector General Act of 1978 to authorize Inspectors General to subpoena the attendance and testimony of witnesses. Requires an Inspector General to use procedures other than subpoenas to obtain attendance and testimony from federal employees.
Requires that such a subpoena provide reasonable notice to the individual whose testimony is sought and state that individual's name and the place of taking the testimony. Directs the Attorney General to represent an Office of Inspector General in the enforcement of such a subpoena.
Prohibits an Inspector General from issuing a subpoena if: (1) the Inspector General believes there has been a violation of federal criminal law or the False Claims Act, unless the Inspector General provides 15 days' notice to the Attorney General; or (2) the Attorney General objects, within 14 days, to the issuance of the subpoena on the grounds that the taking of the testimony is likely to endanger national security or to interfere with any criminal investigation or prosecution, any pending investigation under the False Claims Act, or any civil litigation to which the United States is a party.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Exempts Inspectors General from the Paperwork Reduction Act for any investigation, audit, inspection, evaluation, or other review conducted by any federal office of Inspector General, including any Inspector General defined under the Inspector General Act, any Special Inspector General established by statute, the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency, and the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board.
Authorizes an Inspector General to compare, through a matching program, any federal records with other federal or non-federal records while conducting an audit, inspection, or investigation to identify weaknesses that make a program vulnerable to fraud, waste, or abuse and to detect improper payments and fraud.
Requires: (1) the head of an establishment to take corrective action in response to any questioned costs, a recommendation that funds be put to better use, significant problems, abuses, or deficiencies identified by the establishment's Inspector General; and (2) such head's report to Congress accompanying each Inspector General's semiannual report to include a description of any such corrective action taken or proposed and a certification of any determination that no such action is necessary or appropriate with respect to any such issue.
Codifies specified provisions concerning the classification and pay of Inspectors General of designated federal entities.
Provides that an allegation of wrongdoing against a Special Counsel or Deputy Special Counsel may be received, reviewed, and referred for investigation by the Integrity Committee in the same manner as an allegation against an Inspector General, subject to Special Counsel recusal.
People & committees
Rep. Towns, Edolphus [D-NY-10] · D–NY
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 363.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Oversight and Government. H. Rept. 111-623.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Oversight and Government. H. Rept. 111-623.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
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.
Source last updated: Apr 7, 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.5815 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.5815 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.5815 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.5815 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.