The Congressional Research Service (CRS) recently updated a report on the Data Quality Act (DQA) entitled The Information Quality Act: OMB's Guidance and Initial Implementation." The report summarizes the history of the DQA from its passage as an appropriations rider, through development of information quality guidelines, to the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) annual report to Congress. Several of the report's conclusions coincide with observations and recommendations made by OMB Watch in an analysis of OMB's annual DQA report to Congress. The CRS report strongly implies that the DQA, passed without debate or hearing as an appropriations rider, was duplicative and unnecessary. The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), amended in 1995, already required OMB to oversee agencies' policies on dissemination of information to the public. The PRA also already required agencies to manage their information to improve the quality of the data. Therefore it is unclear exactly what Congress meant to accomplish with the DQA. The CRS report points out that because the DQA lacked any significant legislative history OMB, not Congress, played the definitive role shaping this program. OMB defined the key terms, established the scope of the guidelines and instructed agencies on how the administrative mechanism for correction process should operate. The report also summarizes OMB's report to Congress on the first year of DQA implementation, focusing on the data correction requests federal agencies received under the Act during that period and how the requests were resolved. A short section of the CRS report describes OMB Watch's analysis of OMB's annual report to Congress, summarizing our complaints of flaws, inaccuracies, and bias. CRS's observations and suggestions for possible improvements in the DQA support many of the conclusions and recommendations from OMB Watch's analysis. Mirroring a recommendation from OMB Watch's analysis, the CRS report recommends more reliable data be collected regarding the DQA's effect on rulemaking or agencies' resources. CRS concluded the DQA can have "a significant impact on federal agencies and their information dissemination activities." For example, OMB's recent annual report on the DQA provided "numerous examples of agencies changing their policies and publications in response to administrative requests for correction from affected parties." The authors also note such policy changes have continued after the time period covered by OMB's report. It is unknown which member or committee of Congress requested the CRS report on the DQA or for what purpose. Perhaps the issues raised in the CRS report will prompt Congress to further investigate the DQA's impact on agency activities. To take action on this and ask Congress for an independent investigation of the costs and impacts of the DQA click here.