Overview
Title
To enhance the participation of precision agriculture in the United States, and for other purposes.
ELI5 AI
H.R. 1985 wants to help farmers use special tools and technology, like computers and wireless signals, to grow their crops better. It's like giving farmers super-smart gadgets to make farming easier and more efficient.
Summary AI
H.R. 1985, known as the “Promoting Precision Agriculture Act,” seeks to enhance precision agriculture practices in the United States. The bill directs the Secretary of Agriculture to develop voluntary interconnectivity standards for precision agriculture technologies, including advanced wireless communications and artificial intelligence, in consultation with the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the Federal Communications Commission. Additionally, the Government Accountability Office is tasked with assessing these standards to ensure they encourage the adoption of precision agriculture. The overall aim is to improve farming efficiency and promote leadership in developing agricultural standards.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
General Summary of the Bill
H.R. 1985, known as the "Promoting Precision Agriculture Act," aims to boost the adoption and development of precision agriculture in the United States. Precision agriculture refers to using technology to manage farming inputs like seeds and water more efficiently, thus improving productivity and reducing waste. This bill also seeks to establish the U.S. as a leader in the creation of international standards for precision agriculture. A key aspect of the bill is developing voluntary interconnectivity standards to make adopting these technologies more accessible for farmers.
Summary of Significant Issues
Several issues arise from the language and structure of the bill. First, the definitions in sections like "advanced wireless communications technology" and "foreign adversary" are broad or subjective and could lead to inconsistent interpretation and application. There is also a reliance on external definitions for terms like artificial intelligence, which could introduce ambiguity if external references change. Additionally, the bill's purpose lacks specific strategies or methods for increasing participation in precision agriculture, potentially resulting in implementation challenges.
Impacts on the Public
The bill could broadly affect the public by modernizing agriculture, potentially leading to more sustainable and efficient food production. This could lower costs for consumers and reduce the environmental footprint of farming. However, the success of these outcomes depends on effectively addressing the bill's issues, such as ensuring clear and objective standards and definitions.
Impacts on Specific Stakeholders
For farmers, the development of interconnectivity standards could simplify the integration of precision agriculture technologies, making them more accessible and cost-effective. Yet, the subjective nature of terms like "trusted private sector stakeholders" and "economies of scale" could lead to unequal opportunities for different technology providers, impacting competition and innovation within the sector.
Technology companies stand to benefit significantly from the bill, particularly those developing precision agriculture technologies. The broad definition of 'advanced wireless communications technology' might give some companies an edge over others, depending on how standards are implemented and which technologies are prioritized.
Policymakers and regulators need to carefully consider these implications to ensure the bill supports equitable growth in the precision agriculture sector while managing potential conflicts between stakeholders. Transparent criteria for interpreting the bill's more ambiguous provisions will be essential to achieve these goals.
Issues
The definition of 'advanced wireless communications technology' in Section 2 is broad and might unfairly benefit certain technology companies, potentially leading to preferential treatment in the allocation of resources and support.
The purposes section (Section 3) lacks specificity in how the participation of precision agriculture will be enhanced, which could lead to ambiguity in implementation and evaluation.
The reference to 'artificial intelligence' in Section 2 relies on an external definition, which might introduce legal ambiguity if there are amendments or revisions to the referenced Act.
The term 'foreign adversary' in Section 2 is subjective and could be interpreted differently by various administrations, leading to inconsistent application of related provisions.
The language in Section 4 regarding 'trusted private sector stakeholders' is subjective and could lead to biased inclusion or exclusion of certain entities, impacting the fairness of the interconnectivity standards development process.
The lack of specific criteria or process for the Secretary's determination of 'such other inputs as the Secretary determines to be appropriate' in Section 2 could lead to arbitrary or biased decision-making.
The term 'voluntary consensus standards development organization' in Section 2 is dependent on OMB Circular A–119, which is an external document that might change independently, affecting the understanding and application of the term.
The provision in Section 5 lacks specific details about funding sources or budgets for the GAO assessment, potentially leading to financial concerns or inefficient spending.
There is no mention in Section 5 of the criteria or methodology to be used by the Comptroller General in assessing the standards, which could result in inconsistent or unclear outcomes.
The repeated reference to voluntary standards in Section 5, without defining what makes a standard 'voluntary,' could create ambiguity and require further clarification.
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 Act designates its official name as the “Promoting Precision Agriculture Act”.
2. Definitions Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
This part of the Act defines key terms including advanced wireless communications technology, which involves cutting-edge tech for mobile and Wi-Fi networks, and artificial intelligence, as described in a specific law. It also explains foreign adversary as governments or people threatening U.S. security, precision agriculture for efficient farming, equipment related to it, and who the Secretary is, referring to the Secretary of Agriculture. Additionally, it defines trusted and voluntary consensus standards development organization in relation to communications services and standards development.
3. Purposes Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The purposes of this Act are to increase the involvement of precision agriculture in the U.S. and to support America’s leadership in setting international standards for precision agriculture through voluntary consensus organizations.
4. Interconnectivity standards for precision agriculture Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The bill section requires the Secretary of Agriculture to work with other agencies to create voluntary standards to make it easier and more cost-effective for farms to use precision agriculture technology. They will consider factors like connectivity needs, cybersecurity issues, and advances in technology like AI and wireless communications.
5. GAO assessment of precision agriculture standards Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The GAO (Government Accountability Office) must evaluate the precision agriculture standards created by the Secretary and report on their voluntariness, collaboration with industry groups, and effectiveness in promoting precision agriculture. This study will happen every two years over a span of ten years, starting one year after the standards are developed, and reports will be sent to various congressional committees.