AI DATA Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Min, Dave [D-CA-47]
- Committees
- Oversight and Government Reform Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Sep 24, 2026
Bottom line
This bill significantly enhances federal data collection on labor market dynamics and the specific impacts of artificial intelligence and automation on employment, earnings, and work patterns.
What it actually does
This bill amends the Wagner-Peyser Act to mandate new monthly labor market flow data collection, recurring household time-use and labor force participation surveys, and longitudinal labor market surveys. It also requires the Census Bureau to incorporate AI impact questions into the Business Trends and Outlook Survey and mandates an annual joint report by the Secretaries of Labor and Commerce on AI's workforce impact. The bill authorizes specific appropriations for the new Department of Labor surveys and 'such sums as may be necessary' for the Census Bureau and joint report components.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that the rapid advancement of artificial intelligence and automation necessitates a more robust and granular understanding of its effects on the U.S. workforce. They contend that current data collection methods are insufficient to track changes in job openings, separations, skill demands, and long-term economic mobility, making it difficult for policymakers, educators, and workers to adapt. This bill would provide essential, timely data to inform policy decisions, workforce development programs, and individual career planning in an evolving economy.
Opponents contend
Opponents might raise concerns about the cost of expanding federal data collection activities, arguing that the proposed appropriations are substantial and could be better allocated. They might also question the necessity of such detailed, frequent surveys, suggesting that existing data sources, while imperfect, might be adequate or that the new data might not yield sufficiently actionable insights to justify the investment. Concerns about data privacy, especially with longitudinal surveys, could also be a point of contention.
The bill is concise and clearly structured, making it accessible for an informed reader to understand its provisions within a short timeframe.
Section 2(a) amending Section 15(a) of the Wagner-Peyser Act
Monthly Labor Market Flow Data Collection
This provision requires the Secretary of Labor to conduct a new monthly survey of establishments to collect data on job openings, hiring, and separations (quits, layoffs). This data must be grouped by industry, occupation, and geographic area, and designed to assess labor demand changes due to technological shifts like AI and automation. The collected data will be disseminated monthly through the nationwide workforce and labor market information system.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this data is crucial for understanding real-time shifts in labor demand and turnover, especially as AI accelerates changes in the economy. It provides essential insights for targeted workforce training and economic policy.
Critics contend
Critics might argue that adding another monthly survey could impose an undue reporting burden on businesses, particularly small businesses, and that the cost of collection might outweigh the marginal benefit over existing data.
Tradeoffs
Balances the need for comprehensive, timely data against potential reporting burdens on businesses and the cost of federal data collection.
Section 3 amending Section 15(a) of the Wagner-Peyser Act
Recurring Time-Use and Labor Force Participation Survey
This provision mandates the Secretary of Labor to conduct a recurring household survey measuring how individuals allocate their time across various activities like work, caregiving, household production, and education. The survey must include measures to evaluate the use of digital tools and emerging technologies in the workplace, with annual dissemination of data on how technological change, including AI, affects work patterns and labor force participation.
Section 4 amending Section 15(a) of the Wagner-Peyser Act
Longitudinal Labor Market Surveys
This provision requires the Secretary of Labor to conduct longitudinal surveys that track individuals over extended periods to assess employment, earnings, occupational mobility, education, training, and related outcomes. New survey cohorts must be initiated every 10 years to ensure data remains representative. The surveys must include measures to evaluate the long-term effects of technological change, including AI, on earnings, job stability, retraining, and economic mobility, with annual public reporting.
Section 5
AI Impact Questions in Business Trends and Outlook Survey
This section directs the Director of the Census, in coordination with the Secretary of Labor and the Commissioner of Labor Statistics, to add questions and analysis to the existing Business Trends and Outlook Survey (BTOS) to assess AI adoption and its workforce impact. Data collected will cover AI adoption across industries and changes in hiring, separations, job openings, occupational demand, and business operations due to AI. This data is to be published quarterly, and the authority sunsets after 10 years.
Section 6
Annual Joint Report on AI's Workforce Impact
This section mandates the Secretary of Labor and the Secretary of Commerce to publish an annual report assessing the impact of AI and related technologies on the U.S. workforce. The report must integrate data from the Business Trends and Outlook Survey, labor market flow, time-use, longitudinal, and projection data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and other relevant federal data. It must analyze changes in hiring, separations, job openings, occupational demand, industry-level impacts, broader workforce effects (earnings, job mobility, training), and other relevant analyses. This authority also sunsets after 10 years.
The bill explicitly defines "artificial intelligence" by referencing section 5002 of the National Artificial Intelligence Initiative Act of 2020 (15 U.S.C. 9401). This definition is crucial as it sets the scope for all AI-related data collection and reporting mandates in the bill.
Section 2(b) and Section 7(a)(1)
Why it matters:Standard legislative practice to define terms by reference to avoid redundancy and ensure consistency with existing law.
Case for: Ensures a consistent and legally established understanding of "artificial intelligence" across federal initiatives, preventing ambiguity in data collection and reporting.
Case against: No strong case against, as it's standard practice. Some might argue for a more accessible, self-contained definition within the bill itself for clarity, but referencing existing law is common.
Estimated impact: Ensures all data collection and reporting under this Act align with a specific, established federal definition of AI, impacting the scope and focus of all subsequent activities.
Each new data collection mandate under the Wagner-Peyser Act (labor market flow, time-use, longitudinal) includes a specific authorization of appropriations for fiscal year 2027 and the 5 succeeding fiscal years: $8,000,000 for labor market flow, $5,000,000 for time-use, and $20,000,000 for longitudinal data.
Sections 2(a)(3)(D), 3(4)(D), 4(5)(D)
Why it matters:Common practice for authorizing legislation to include specific authorizations alongside the new programs they create.
Case for: Provides clear, dedicated funding streams for each new data collection initiative, signaling congressional intent for these programs to be adequately resourced.
Case against: No strong case against. Some might argue for a single, consolidated appropriations section for all new mandates for easier overview, but this is a minor point.
Estimated impact: Authorizes a total of $33,000,000 annually for 6 years ($198,000,000 total over 6 years) for these new data collection activities, representing a significant investment in labor market statistics.