Overview
Title
To amend section 3520A of title 44, United States Code, to extend the Chief Data Officer Council's sunset and add new authorities for improving Federal agency data governance, including to enable reliable and secure adoption of emerging technologies and artificial intelligence, and for other purposes.
ELI5 AI
The bill wants to give a group of people more time and power to help the government use and take care of their data better, like when using computers to learn and do things automatically. It's like making sure everyone shares their toys safely and fairly when playing with new, cool gadgets.
Summary AI
The bill S. 5109, titled the "Modernizing Data Practices to Improve Government Act," aims to amend section 3520A of title 44 in the United States Code. It seeks to extend the lifespan of the Chief Data Officer Council and expand its powers to enhance how federal agencies manage their data. This includes making it easier and safer for these agencies to use new technologies like artificial intelligence. The bill also requires reports on progress and best practices in these areas and sets a timeframe of seven years after which the amendments will no longer be in effect.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
General Summary of the Bill
The proposed legislation, titled the “Modernizing Data Practices to Improve Government Act,” seeks to amend section 3520A of title 44, United States Code. The primary objective of the bill is to extend the duration and enhance the authorities of the Chief Data Officer Council. These enhancements are aimed at improving data governance across federal agencies, with a particular focus on facilitating the secure integration of emerging technologies and artificial intelligence. Key amendments include the definition of crucial terms related to artificial intelligence and data governance, procedures for better data management, and reporting requirements for compliance and improvements.
Significant Issues
Complex Legal Language: The legislation is marked by complex legal jargon, which might be challenging for the general public to interpret. This complexity runs the risk of misinterpretation and disengagement from significant policy changes in data governance.
Administrative Burdens: The bill mandates several reporting and evaluation requirements. The necessity for biennial and annual reports, alongside assessments by the Comptroller General, could lead to increased bureaucratic processes and administrative costs, potentially creating inefficiencies without clearly defined outcomes for improvement.
Potential for Favoritism: There is concern regarding the appointment of representatives to the Chief Data Officer Council, especially concerning the selection of Chief Artificial Intelligence Officers. This process may not be transparent, risking potential biases that could affect the neutrality of the Council.
Ambiguous Data Policies: The proposed amendments set forth data governance and synthetic data practices without clear indicators of efficacy or cost-effectiveness. This could lead to implementation issues or potentially inefficient use of resources.
Overlap in Roles: The introduction of numerous roles and councils, such as Chief Data Officers and various interagency councils, could result in overlapping responsibilities. Such overlaps may cause inefficiencies and reduce the benefits expected from improved data governance.
Contractual Clarity: The bill lacks explicit language on data ownership and retention, which could lead to misunderstandings within procurement contracts. This lack of clarity might result in vendor lock-in, stifling competitive bidding and cost-effectiveness.
Evaluation Criteria: The absence of specific criteria for evaluating improvements under the duties of the Council could lead to vague outcomes. Without detailed performance metrics, accountability and effectiveness of the legislative oversight could be undermined.
Broader Impact on the Public
This bill intends to streamline and secure data handling across federal agencies, which in turn, aims to foster the adoption of innovative technologies like artificial intelligence. Optimized data governance can lead to enhanced service delivery to the public and improved operational efficiency within government functions. However, if not implemented efficiently, the bill’s requirements may lead to unnecessary bureaucratic overhead and increased taxpayer costs without tangible enhancements in government operations.
Impact on Stakeholders
Federal Agencies: Agencies are expected to develop and implement improved data practices, which could improve operational efficiencies. Yet, increased administrative burdens and potential role overlaps might hinder smooth execution unless addressed effectively.
Technology Vendors: The stipulations around data policies, if clarified, may provide vendors with better structured guidelines for collaboration with the government. In the absence of clarity, though, these could lead to restrictive contracts and limited business opportunities.
Public Sector Employees: The bill could result in enhanced training and clearer roles for federal employees involved with data governance. However, the complexity of new practices may require significant adaptation and additional resources.
General Public: Ideally, the bill would enhance public access to governmental data, thus promoting transparency. Yet, bureaucratic complications could delay these intended benefits, impacting the perceived efficiency of governmental reforms.
Overall, while the bill has the potential to bring about significant advancements in federal data governance and technology adoption, careful consideration of the outlined issues is crucial to ensuring its successful implementation and effectiveness.
Issues
The bill involves dense and complex legal language in Section 2, which might be difficult for the general public to understand and interpret. This could lead to misinterpretation or lack of awareness about significant changes in data governance policies.
The requirement for multiple reports and evaluations in Section 2, such as biennial and annual reports, may lead to significant administrative costs. This could be perceived as unnecessary bureaucracy and a potential waste of taxpayer money without clear efficiency improvements.
The provisions in Section 2 for appointing representatives to the Chief Data Officer Council could lead to favoritism or bias, especially in selecting Chief Artificial Intelligence Officers. This lack of transparency might compromise the fairness and neutrality of the Council’s decision-making process.
Section 2 mandates data governance policies and synthetic data practices without clear indicators of efficiency or cost-effectiveness. This could result in implementation challenges or wasteful spending if mismanaged, impacting the allocation of federal resources.
Without explicit language specifying requirements for data ownership and retention policies, as noted in Section 2, there could be contractual misunderstandings and potential vendor lock-in issues, limiting competitive bidding and cost-effective procurement processes.
Section 2 creates overlapping responsibilities through the involvement of numerous roles and councils, such as Chief Data Officers and Chief Information Officers Council. This could lead to inefficiency and duplication of efforts, diminishing the potential benefits of improved data governance.
The section on evaluation by the Comptroller General in Section 2 lacks specific criteria for assessing data governance improvements and successes. This may lead to ambiguous outcomes and diminish the accountability and effectiveness of legislative oversight on data governance initiatives.
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 provides the short title of the Act, which is called the "Modernizing Data Practices to Improve Government Act."
2. Amendments Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The amendments to Section 3520A of title 44, United States Code, focus on defining key terms related to artificial intelligence and data governance, detailing the responsibilities of federal agencies in managing data securely and efficiently, and outlining procedures to improve the adoption of artificial intelligence. The amendments also mandate regular reports and guidance on data governance best practices to ensure the effective use of data across government agencies.