S-1363-116
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 456.
Sponsored by Brian Schatz (D-HI)
What it does
This bill would create an AI Center of Excellence inside the General Services Administration (GSA) to coordinate how federal agencies adopt and use artificial intelligence. It would require the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to issue guidance on AI governance to all federal agencies, and require those agencies to publish public plans describing how they will follow that guidance. It would also direct the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to identify the skills needed for AI-related federal jobs and create or update job classifications to include AI-focused positions.
Who benefits
Federal agencies seeking a centralized resource for AI adoption guidance; federal employees who may gain clearer career pathways and job classifications in AI-related roles; private technology companies that may receive more consistent and predictable federal AI procurement signals; members of the public who interact with federal services that could become more efficient through AI; researchers and academics who gain access to publicly posted agency AI governance plans.
Who is hurt
Federal employees in roles that could be automated or restructured as agencies adopt AI, potentially facing job displacement or reclassification; smaller technology vendors who may struggle to meet new federal AI standards compared to large contractors; privacy advocates and civil liberties groups concerned that expanded government AI use could increase surveillance or algorithmic decision-making without sufficient oversight; agency staff who would bear the administrative burden of drafting, submitting, and updating AI governance plans.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the federal government's fragmented, agency-by-agency approach to AI leaves taxpayers with duplicated costs, inconsistent results, and missed opportunities for efficiency. A centralized AI Center of Excellence would give agencies a shared resource to learn from each other, avoid redundant procurement, and adopt proven practices faster. Requiring public governance plans creates transparency and accountability, letting citizens and Congress see exactly how AI is being used in government. Establishing clear AI job classifications would help the federal government recruit and retain the technical talent it needs to compete with the private sector, ultimately delivering better services to the public at lower cost.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that creating a new centralized AI office risks adding bureaucratic layers that slow down agencies better positioned to tailor AI adoption to their own missions and legal mandates. Mandatory governance plans and reporting requirements would consume staff time and agency resources that could otherwise be directed toward core public services. Critics also contend that the bill provides insufficient guardrails on how AI may be used once adopted — prioritizing efficiency and coordination over civil liberties, algorithmic accountability, and protections for people affected by automated government decisions. Centralizing AI strategy in OMB and a GSA office could also concentrate significant influence over technology policy in the executive branch with limited congressional checks.
Constitutional context
The bill operates primarily under Congress's authority to organize and fund executive branch operations, grounded in the Necessary and Proper Clause (Art. I, Sec. 8). Because the bill directs OMB and OPM — both executive agencies — to issue guidance and create job classifications, it implicates separation of powers and the post-Loper Bright (2024) environment, where courts independently review agency interpretations rather than deferring to them. If AI governance guidance were later used to impose significant regulatory burdens on private contractors, West Virginia v. EPA (2022) major questions doctrine could require explicit congressional authorization. The public posting requirement raises no significant constitutional tension. The Tenth Amendment is not directly implicated, as the bill governs federal — not state — operations.
Checks and balances
The bill shifts coordination authority to the executive branch — specifically OMB, GSA, and OPM — giving those offices new directive power over all federal agencies' AI strategies. Congress retains oversight through the requirement that OMB submit a comprehensive plan with a timeline to Congress. The public comment requirement on the draft OMB memorandum provides a procedural check. However, the bill does not establish a congressional approval mechanism for the governance memorandum itself, meaning the executive branch would have broad discretion in shaping federal AI policy within the framework the bill creates.
Historical precedent
The Federal IT Acquisition Reform Act (FITARA, 2014) similarly centralized federal technology procurement and governance authority, requiring agency CIO accountability and OMB oversight — a structural parallel to this bill's AI coordination approach.