Strengthening Agency Management and Oversight of Software Assets Act

Bill Number: H.R. 5457
Origin Chamber: House
Congress: 119th Congress, Session 1
Policy Area: Government Operations and Politics
Status: Passed House
Latest Action: 2025-12-16: Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Last Updated: 2026-02-28T00:46:36Z

AI-Generated Summary

Purpose of the Legislation

The Strengthening Agency Management and Oversight of Software Assets Act (H.R. 5457) aims to enhance the visibility, accountability, and oversight of how federal agencies manage their software assets. It focuses on improving software inventories, reducing unnecessary costs, eliminating duplicative licenses, and promoting more efficient acquisition and use of software, including through enterprise-wide licensing and better interoperability.

Key Provisions

Definitions (Section 2): Establishes clear terms, such as "agency" (federal entities under 44 U.S.C. § 3502, excluding intelligence community elements), "software entitlement" (purchased, leased, or licensed software with usage limits), "software inventory" (existing agency lists of software under prior laws like the E-Government Act of 2002), and others like "cloud computing" (based on NIST standards).

Software Inventory Update and Expansion (Section 3):
Requires each agency's Chief Information Officer (CIO), in consultation with financial, acquisition, data, and legal officers, to complete a comprehensive assessment of all agency software (paid for, in use, or deployed) within 18 months of enactment.
The assessment must include: current inventories (with entitlements, contracts, and top providers/categories); detailed accounting of software usage, costs (including hidden fees like cloud services), unused or duplicative items, and interoperability efforts; categorization by cost/volume/type; restrictions on deployment/use (e.g., hardware or cloud limits); and analysis of accuracy, compliance, total costs, and license policies.
Agencies may contract for support, but contractors must avoid conflicts of interest (per Federal Acquisition Regulation) and maintain independence.
Assessments are submitted internally, then to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), General Services Administration (GSA) Administrator, Comptroller General (GAO head), and relevant congressional committees within 30 days.
OMB Director, with GSA, shares best practices for standardization.
Intelligence community (IC) elements conduct separate assessments with national security protections, submitting summaries to OMB and intelligence committees.

Software Modernization Planning (Section 4):
Using assessment data, agency CIOs (with other officers) must develop a plan to consolidate entitlements, adopt cost-effective strategies (e.g., enterprise licensing), and restrict sub-agency software acquisitions without CIO approval.
Plans must detail: remediation of deficiencies and ongoing maintenance; automation and training on negotiations, custom vs. commercial software, and license adjustments; prioritization for cost-effective licenses (e.g., open-source); cost estimates and savings projections; mitigations for restrictions; vendor-neutral purchase criteria; resource needs; software prevalence across categories; and other relevant data.
Agencies may request OMB/GSA support; plans submitted to OMB and committees within 1 year of assessment submission (IC separately to intelligence committees).
OMB Director, with GSA and councils (e.g., CIO Council), establishes standardized processes for terms/conditions; submits a report within 2 years recommending government-wide improvements in interoperability, consolidation, costs, performance, and management.

GAO Report (Section 5): Within 3 years, GAO must report to congressional committees on government-wide software trends, agency comparisons, OMB processes, contract compliance, and plan analyses.

No Additional Funds (Section 6): Implementation uses existing agency resources; no new appropriations authorized.

Significant Changes to Existing Law

Expands the software inventory requirements under the E-Government Act of 2002 (via the 2016 amendments in Public Law 114-210) by mandating comprehensive assessments that include hidden costs, interoperability, and restrictions—beyond basic inventories.
Introduces new planning mandates for modernization and consolidation, with CIO approval gates for acquisitions, building on but not altering core acquisition laws like the Federal Acquisition Regulation.
Adds reporting layers to OMB, GSA, GAO, and Congress, including IC-specific protections under the National Security Act, without creating new funds or overriding intelligence exemptions.

Potential Impacts

On Government Agencies: Increases internal coordination and accountability, potentially leading to cost savings (e.g., eliminating unused licenses), better performance through interoperability and automation, and reduced waste in software spending. Agencies must invest time/resources upfront but gain long-term efficiencies; IC handles processes separately to protect security.
On Citizens: Indirect benefits via more efficient federal operations, potentially lowering taxpayer costs for software and improving government services (e.g., faster, more reliable systems). No direct citizen-facing changes.
On International Relations: Minimal impact; focuses on domestic agency management, though standardized practices could indirectly affect U.S. government dealings with international software vendors or cloud providers.

Main Stakeholders Affected

Federal Agencies: Primary targets, including CIOs, CFOs, acquisition/data/legal officers; must conduct assessments, develop plans, and train staff (excludes IC elements, which follow tailored rules).
Oversight Entities: OMB Director (leads coordination/reporting), GSA Administrator (supports standardization), GAO (independent audits/trends analysis).
Congress: Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee (Senate), Oversight and Government Reform Committee (House), plus intelligence committees for IC matters.
Others: Software vendors/cloud providers (face scrutiny on licenses/restrictions); contractors (limited by conflict rules); agency employees (requiring training on software policies).

Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications

Legal: Strengthens compliance with existing statutes (e.g., E-Government Act, Federal Acquisition Regulation) by enforcing detailed tracking and vendor-neutral criteria, potentially reducing litigation over wasteful spending. Emphasizes conflict-of-interest safeguards and IC protections under national security laws, ensuring no unauthorized disclosures.
Constitutional: Aligns with Congress's spending power (Article I) to oversee executive branch efficiency without new funds, promoting accountability without infringing on agency autonomy or separation of powers.
Political: Enhances bipartisan oversight of federal IT spending (a common reform target), fostering transparency and cost controls amid budget pressures. Could spark debates on implementation burdens but avoids partisan issues by focusing on neutral management improvements.

This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.

Sponsor

Rep. Brown, Shontel M. [D-OH-11]

Cosponsors (3)

Rep. Mace, Nancy [R-SC-1], Rep. Fallon, Pat [R-TX-4], Rep. McClain Delaney, April [D-MD-6]

Recent Actions

2025-12-16: Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
2025-12-15: Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
2025-12-15: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H5862-5864)
2025-12-15: Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H5862-5864)
2025-12-15: DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 5457.
2025-12-15: Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H5862-5864)
2025-12-15: Mr. Timmons moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
2025-12-02: Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 43 - 0.
2025-12-02: Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held
2025-09-18: Referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
2025-09-18: Introduced in House
2025-09-18: Introduced in House

Bill Versions

Strengthening Agency Management and Oversight of Software Assets Act — issued 2025-12-15 — PDF (18 pages)
Strengthening Agency Management and Oversight of Software Assets Act — issued 2025-09-18 — PDF (16 pages)
Strengthening Agency Management and Oversight of Software Assets Act — issued 2025-12-16 — PDF (17 pages)