PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Dec 1, 2025
Information Quality Assurance Act of 2025
This bill requires the Office of Management and Budget to revise the guidelines for federal agencies with respect to the dissemination or use of influential information or evidence, which means information or evidence about which an agency can reasonably determine that reliance on or dissemination of has, or will have, a clear and substantial impact on important public actions, policies or statements, or on important private sector decisions.
The guidelines must ensure that federal agencies rely on the best reasonably available influential information and evidence that is appropriate for the purpose when developing, issuing, or informing the public about the rules and guidance of the agency.
An agency also must publish (1) the critical factual material relied on as part of the rulemaking or guidance development process, and (2) a citation to any other source used to inform the rulemaking or guidance development process.
The guidelines must also require an agency to provide certain opportunities for the public to comment on the critical factual material upon which the agency relied.
People & committees
Rep. McClain, Lisa C. [R-MI-9] · R–MI
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 362 - 1 (Roll no. 71).
House roll call 71 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 362 - 1 (Roll no. 71).
House roll call 71 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H2276-2277)
At the conclusion of debate, the Yeas and Nays were demanded and ordered. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 8, rule XX, the Chair announced that further proceedings on the motion would be postponed.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 6329.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H2245-2247; text: CR H2245-2246)
Mr. Timmons moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 43 - 0.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held
Referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
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: Jul 13, 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.6329 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.6329 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.6329 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.6329 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.