Overview
Title
To prohibit the award of Federal grants to applicants submitting duplicative or fraudulent applications, to require the Director of Office of Management and Budget to establish a tracking and deconfliction system for Federal grant applications, and for other purposes.
ELI5 AI
The DOGE Act wants to stop people from getting extra government money by tricking or asking for the same thing twice, and it will use computers to help keep track of this. The plan is to make sure that places like colleges might get special rules, but everyone else has to follow the same rules so nobody cheats.
Summary AI
H.R. 10177, also called the "Decreasing Overlapping Grants Efficiently Act" or "DOGE Act," aims to prevent the awarding of federal grants to applicants that submit duplicate or fraudulent applications. It requires the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to create a system to track federal grant applications to ensure no applicant receives multiple grants for the same purpose unless they are an institution of higher education. Additionally, the bill instructs the OMB to report on the feasibility of using artificial intelligence to spot duplicate applications and detect waste, fraud, and abuse in the grant process.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
General Summary of the Bill
The bill, known as the “Decreasing Overlapping Grants Efficiently Act” or the “DOGE Act,” aims to improve the efficiency and accountability of federal grant allocation. Introduced in the House of Representatives, it seeks to prevent federal agencies from awarding grants to applicants who submit duplicative or fraudulent applications. It also mandates the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to establish a tracking system to identify such applications across different agencies. Additionally, the bill calls for a report on the feasibility of using artificial intelligence (AI) to detect duplicative grant applications, waste, fraud, and abuse.
Summary of Significant Issues
One notable issue with the bill is the exception allowing institutions of higher education to apply for the same grants with different agencies. This could lead to potential favoritism and less stringent oversight compared to other applicants. Additionally, the bill lacks specific penalties for fraudulent applications, relying solely on denying the grant, which may not sufficiently deter fraudulent behavior.
Another concern is the ambiguity in the criteria for determining whether grants serve the same or identical purpose, potentially leading to inconsistent enforcement. The text also raises privacy and security concerns, as it does not specify how sensitive information stored in the proposed electronic tracking system will be protected. Furthermore, the bill does not specify a timeline for submitting the AI feasibility report to Congress, potentially delaying its implementation.
Impact on the Public Broadly
If successfully implemented, the bill could lead to more efficient use of public funds by reducing duplicative grants and fraudulent applications. This, in turn, might enhance public trust in government spending and ensure that taxpayer money is allocated to genuine and unique projects. However, the lack of clear criteria for what constitutes duplicative applications could result in inconsistent application and enforcement of the bill's provisions.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
For federal agencies, the bill introduces new responsibilities, including the need to establish an electronic system to track grant applications and collaborate on determining awards. This could improve inter-agency communication but might also result in increased administrative burdens.
Institutions of higher education could benefit from the bill's exception allowing them to apply for the same grants across different agencies, potentially giving them an advantage in securing funding. However, other applicants might find this measure unfair, leading to perceptions of bias.
Finally, the use of AI to detect fraudulent grant applications could depend on the robustness of the system developed and its ability to accurately identify issues without leading to false positives. This could affect stakeholders such as tech companies involved in developing AI solutions and the applicants whose submissions might be scrutinized by automated processes.
Overall, while the DOGE Act aims to enhance the efficiency and integrity of federal grant processes, it must address its shortcomings to ensure fair and effective implementation.
Issues
The provision in Section 2(a)(1)(B) allowing an exception for institutions of higher education in cases of duplicate grants could lead to potential favoritism toward such institutions and might result in less stringent oversight compared to other types of applicants.
The bill lacks specific penalties or consequences for submitting fraudulent applications beyond not receiving the grant, as noted in Section 2(b), which might not be a sufficient deterrent and could allow for continued fraudulent behavior.
The text does not specify the criteria for determining whether two grants serve 'the same or identical purpose,' as highlighted in Sections 2(a)(1)(A) and 3(a), which could lead to ambiguity and inconsistent enforcement.
There is a concern regarding the privacy or security measures related to the electronic system mentioned in Section 3(a) that will store sensitive information about grant applicants.
The language regarding the identification of 'waste, fraud, and abuse' in Section 4 is vague and lacks specific criteria or guidelines for assessment, which may impede effectiveness in addressing these issues.
The bill does not specify a timeline for when the report on the feasibility of leveraging AI should be submitted to Congress, as noted in Section 4, potentially leading to delays in its implementation.
The definition of 'applicable time period' in Section 5 may create confusion as it relies on a future event \\u2013 the establishment of a system under section 2(a), which is not clearly defined in the given text.
Sections
Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.
1. Short title Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The first section of the bill introduces its short title, stating that it can be referred to as the “Decreasing Overlapping Grants Efficiently Act” or simply the “DOGE Act.”
2. Prohibition on award of Federal grants to applicants submitting duplicative or fraudulent applications Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section prohibits federal agencies from giving grants to applicants who submit identical or fraudulent applications. However, institutions of higher education are allowed to apply for the same purpose with different agencies, and agencies must collaborate to decide which agency will award the grant if necessary.
3. Tracking and deconfliction system for Federal grant applications Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The bill proposes creating an electronic system for federal agencies to check if someone applying for a grant has already applied for or received a similar grant from another agency. This system will help track grant applications by including details like the awardee's name, project leader, and contact information.
4. Report on feasibility of leveraging artificial intelligence to identify duplicative Federal grant applications Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section requires the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, along with other officials, to report to Congress on using artificial intelligence to quickly find if a grant applicant has applied for or received similar grants from different federal agencies, and to detect waste, fraud, and abuse in grant applications.
5. Definitions Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
In this section, the bill defines some important terms used throughout the document. These include what "applicable time period" means in relation to applying for grants, which congressional committees are considered "appropriate," what qualifies as a "covered application" for a grant, the meaning of "executive agency," and the term "institution of higher education" as defined by another law.