Overview
Title
An Act To amend title 41, United States Code, to make changes with respect to the Federal Acquisition Security Council, and for other purposes.
ELI5 AI
The bill wants to make sure the United States is more careful when buying things to keep us safe, especially from other countries. It makes a group of people in charge of watching out for any danger, and if they find problems, they need to tell those in charge what’s happening to fix it.
Summary AI
The bill H. R. 9597 aims to amend title 41 of the United States Code to enhance the responsibilities and operation of the Federal Acquisition Security Council. It seeks to define terms related to security risks from foreign sources, specify the membership and responsibilities of the Council, and establish a Program Office to support its activities. Additionally, the bill outlines procedures for issuing orders to exclude or remove security threats and mandates regular reporting to Congress on the associated risks. It also includes provisions to streamline and coordinate compliance with existing laws and regulations regarding acquisition security.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
Overview of the Bill
The "Federal Acquisition Security Council Improvement Act of 2024" seeks to amend title 41 of the United States Code regarding the Federal Acquisition Security Council (FASC). The legislation introduces new definitions crucial for national security, including terms like "covered source of concern" and "designated order." It restructures council membership, stipulating precise roles and responsibilities, and establishes a program office to be housed in the Office of the National Cyber Director. Furthermore, it demands annual reporting on acquisition and supply chain security risks to Congress and outlines processes for dealing with sources deemed threats to national security.
Summary of Significant Issues
The bill brings forth several potential issues:
Complexity and Technical Language: The bill's highly specialized language may hinder public understanding and engagement. This complexity might also obscure accountability and limit effective oversight from those not well-versed in legal or administrative jargon.
Transparency and Oversight Concerns: The procedures for issuing recommended and designated orders allow for significant discretion without detailed review, leading to potential transparency problems. Additionally, the exemption from disclosing information about proposed orders until final issuance may further reduce transparency.
Resource and Jurisdictional Impacts: The move to involve personnel from other federal entities on a nonreimbursable basis could strain resources and lead to financial inefficiencies. Furthermore, reallocating tasks from the Office of Management and Budget to the Office of the National Cyber Director without thorough justification raises questions about appropriateness and the expertise required for such responsibilities.
Waiver Provisions for Orders: The ability for officials to waive security-related orders for up to 365 days, with possible renewals, may delay necessary protection measures, thereby undermining the bill's security objectives.
Public Impact
The implications of this bill are profound, as it focuses on enhancing national security by tightening controls over federal acquisition processes. Generally, if implemented effectively, it stands to increase resilience against foreign threats, thereby benefiting the broader public by enhancing national security.
However, the lack of transparency and complex language could disengage the public, reducing their understanding and involvement in these critical governmental processes. This disconnect might lead to skepticism about the council’s decisions and their consequences.
Stakeholder Impact
Stakeholders including federal agencies, contractors, and foreign entities are likely to be directly affected:
Federal Agencies: Agencies might face challenges concerning resource allocation and compliance with the new regulations, particularly given the nonreimbursable personnel detailing that could stress already limited resources.
Contractors: Businesses dealing in technologies or services linked with national security could encounter substantial changes to compliance requirements. They might also face sudden disruptions due to designated orders that affect their operations or partnerships with foreign companies.
Foreign Entities: Companies outside the U.S. and those with connections to designated sources of concern might experience increased scrutiny and possible exclusion from federal procurement processes, potentially affecting their business operations significantly.
In conclusion, while the bill aims to strengthen national security, its effectiveness might be challenged by issues like resource constraints, lack of transparency, and potential inefficiencies in implementation. Balancing these concerns will be crucial for achieving the legislation's intended outcomes without unintended adverse effects.
Issues
The nonreimbursable detail provision in Section 2(c)(2)(F) could lead to unanticipated costs and resource allocation challenges for agencies assisting the Program Office, raising concerns about wasteful spending.
The power given to the Council to issue designated and recommended orders in Section 2(c)(3) and Section 2(c)(6), without extensive review or challenge, may raise oversight and transparency issues, potentially impacting accountability.
The ability for officials to waive orders for up to 365 days with renewal options in Section 2(c)(6)(iv) and Section 2(c)(6)(v), might delay necessary security measures, possibly compromising security objectives.
The exemption from public disclosure of information in Section 2(c)(4)(F) about proposed orders before their issuance may reduce transparency, potentially leading to accountability issues.
The bill's complex and technical language, particularly in Section 2, might be difficult for individuals without a legal or governmental background to understand, potentially limiting public engagement and oversight.
The absence of clear guidelines for the comprehensive nature of reports to Congress mentioned in Section 2(c)(11) could impact the efficacy of oversight by failing to ensure detailed and informative reporting.
No clear specification of the funding, structure, or staffing size for the Federal Acquisition Security Council Program Office in Section 2(c)(2)(E) may lead to inefficiencies or imbalances in resource allocation.
The amendment in Section 3 reallocating responsibilities from the Office of Management and Budget to the Office of the National Cyber Director lacks explanation of the rationale behind this change, presenting a potential issue of transparency and justification.
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 states its short title, which is the “Federal Acquisition Security Council Improvement Act of 2024.”
2. Changes with respect to the federal acquisition security council Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section outlines changes to the Federal Acquisition Security Council, updating definitions and adding new terms like "covered source of concern" and "designated order." It modifies the council's structure by specifying member positions, functions, and authorities, establishes a program office within the Office of the National Cyber Director, and mandates the council to report on acquisition and supply chain security risks. It also emphasizes collaboration for compliance with existing prohibitions and requires updates to regulations within two years.
1329. Additional provisions Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section requires the Council to work with other agencies to ensure they are following specific laws related to national defense and security, like prohibiting certain technologies. Additionally, any necessary regulations by the Council have to be updated within two years of this section's enactment.
3. Reallocating existing resources Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section of the bill changes the wording in part of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023 by replacing "Office of Management and Budget" with "Office of the National Cyber Director." This change is made in two different places within the same paragraph.