[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 190 (Wednesday, November 15, 2023)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5543-S5550]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
______
By Mr. THUNE (for himself, Ms. Klobuchar, Mr. Wicker, Mr.
Hickenlooper, Mr. Lujan, and Mrs. Capito):
S. 3312. A bill to provide a framework for artificial intelligence
innovation and accountability, and for other purposes; to the Committee
on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of
the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 3312
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Artificial Intelligence
Research, Innovation, and Accountability Act of 2023''.
SEC. 2. TABLE OF CONTENTS.
The table of contents for this Act is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title.
Sec. 2. Table of contents.
TITLE I--ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE RESEARCH AND INNOVATION
Sec. 101. Open data policy amendments.
Sec. 102. Online content authenticity and provenance standards research
and development.
Sec. 103. Standards for detection of emergent and anomalous behavior
and AI-generated media.
Sec. 104. Comptroller General study on barriers and best practices to
usage of AI in government.
TITLE II--ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE ACCOUNTABILITY
Sec. 201. Definitions.
Sec. 202. Generative artificial intelligence transparency.
Sec. 203. Transparency reports for high-impact artificial intelligence
systems.
Sec. 204. Recommendations to Federal agencies for risk management of
high-impact artificial intelligence systems.
Sec. 205. Office of management and budget oversight of recommendations
to agencies.
Sec. 206. Risk management assessment for critical-impact artificial
intelligence systems.
Sec. 207. Certification of critical-impact artificial intelligence
systems.
Sec. 208. Enforcement.
Sec. 209. Artificial intelligence consumer education.
TITLE I--ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE RESEARCH AND INNOVATION
SEC. 101. OPEN DATA POLICY AMENDMENTS.
Section 3502 of title 44, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (22)--
(A) by inserting ``or data model'' after ``a data asset'';
and
(B) by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in paragraph (23), by striking the period at the end
and inserting a semicolon; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(24) the term `data model' means a mathematical,
economic, or statistical representation of a system or
process used to assist in making calculations and
predictions, including through the use of algorithms,
computer programs, or artificial intelligence systems; and
``(25) the term `artificial intelligence system' means an
engineered system that--
``(A) generates outputs, such as content, predictions,
recommendations, or decisions for a given set of objectives;
and
``(B) is designed to operate with varying levels of
adaptability and autonomy using machine and human-based
inputs.''.
SEC. 102. ONLINE CONTENT AUTHENTICITY AND PROVENANCE
STANDARDS RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT.
(a) Research.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Under Secretary of Commerce
for Standards and Technology shall carry out research to
facilitate the development and standardization of means to
provide authenticity and provenance information for content
generated by human authors and artificial intelligence
systems.
(2) Elements.--The research carried out pursuant to
paragraph (1) shall cover the following:
(A) Secure and binding methods for human authors of content
to append statements of provenance through the use of unique
credentials, watermarking, or other data or metadata-based
approaches.
(B) Methods for the verification of statements of content
provenance to ensure authenticity such as watermarking or
classifiers, which are trained models that distinguish
artificial intelligence-generated media.
(C) Methods for displaying clear and conspicuous statements
of content provenance to the end user.
(D) Technologies or applications needed to facilitate the
creation and verification of content provenance information.
(E) Mechanisms to ensure that any technologies and methods
developed under this section are minimally burdensome on
content producers.
(F) Such other related processes, technologies, or
applications as the Under Secretary considers appropriate.
(G) Use of provenance technology to enable attribution for
content creators.
(3) Implementation.--The Under Secretary shall carry out
the research required by paragraph (1) as part of the
research directives pursuant to section 22A(b)(1) of the
National Institute of Standards and Technology Act (15 U.S.C.
278h-1(b)(1)).
(b) Development of Standards.--
(1) In general.--For methodologies and applications related
to content provenance and authenticity deemed by the Under
Secretary to be at a readiness level sufficient for
standardization, the Under Secretary shall provide technical
review and assistance to such other Federal agencies and
nongovernmental standards organizations as the Under
Secretary considers appropriate.
(2) Considerations.--In providing any technical review and
assistance related to the development of content provenance
and authenticity standards under this subsection, the Under
Secretary may--
(A) consider whether a proposed standard is reasonable,
practicable, and appropriate for the particular type of media
and media environment for which the standard is proposed;
(B) consult with relevant stakeholders; and
(C) review industry standards issued by nongovernmental
standards organizations.
(c) Pilot Program.--
(1) In general.--The Under Secretary shall carry out a
pilot program to assess the feasibility and advisability of
using available technologies and creating open standards to
facilitate the creation and verification of content
governance information for digital content.
(2) Locations.--The pilot program required by paragraph (1)
shall be carried out at not more than 2 Federal agencies the
Under Secretary shall select for purposes of the pilot
program required by paragraph (1).
(3) Requirements.--In carrying out the pilot program
required by paragraph (1), the Under Secretary shall--
[[Page S5544]]
(A) apply and evaluate methods for authenticating the
origin of and modifications to government-produced digital
content using technology and open standards described in
paragraph (1); and
(B) make available to the public digital content embedded
with provenance or other authentication provided by the heads
of the Federal agencies selected pursuant to paragraph (2)
for the purposes of the pilot program.
(4) Briefing required.--Not later than 1 year after the
date of the enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter
until the date described in paragraph (5), the Under
Secretary shall brief the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation of the Senate and the Committee on Science,
Space, and Technology of the House of Representatives on the
findings of the Under Secretary with respect to the pilot
program carried out under this subsection.
(5) Termination.--The pilot program shall terminate on the
date that is 10 years after the date of the enactment of this
Act.
(d) Report to Congress.--Not later than 1 year after the
date of the enactment of this Act, the Under Secretary shall
submit to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation of the Senate and the Committee on Science,
Space, and Technology of the House of Representatives a
report outlining the progress of standardization initiatives
relating to requirements under this section, as well as
recommendations for legislative or administrative action to
encourage or require the widespread adoption of such
initiatives in the United States.
SEC. 103. STANDARDS FOR DETECTION OF EMERGENT AND ANOMALOUS
BEHAVIOR AND AI-GENERATED MEDIA.
Section 22A(b)(1) of the National Institute of Standards
and Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 278h-1(b)(1)) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subparagraph (I) as subparagraph (K);
(2) in subparagraph (H), by striking ``; and'' and
inserting a semicolon; and
(3) by inserting after subparagraph (H) the following:
``(I) best practices for detecting outputs generated by
artificial intelligence systems, including content such as
text, audio, images, and videos;
``(J) methods to detect and understand anomalous behavior
of artificial intelligence systems and safeguards to mitigate
potentially adversarial or compromising anomalous behavior;
and''.
SEC. 104. COMPTROLLER GENERAL STUDY ON BARRIERS AND BEST
PRACTICES TO USAGE OF AI IN GOVERNMENT.
(a) In General.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United
States shall--
(1) conduct a review of statutory, regulatory, and other
policy barriers to the use of artificial intelligence systems
to improve the functionality of the Federal Government; and
(2) identify best practices for the adoption and use of
artificial intelligence systems by the Federal Government,
including--
(A) ensuring that an artificial intelligence system is
proportional to the need of the Federal Government;
(B) restrictions on access to and use of an artificial
intelligence system based on the capabilities and risks of
the artificial intelligence system; and
(C) safety measures that ensure that an artificial
intelligence system is appropriately limited to necessary
data and compartmentalized from other assets of the Federal
Government.
(b) Report.--Not later than 2 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United
States shall submit to the Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation of the Senate and the Committee on
Science, Space, and Technology of the House of
Representatives a report that--
(1) summarizes the results of the review conducted under
subsection (a)(1) and the best practices identified under
subsection (a)(2), including recommendations, as the
Comptroller General of the United States considers
appropriate;
(2) describes any laws, regulations, guidance documents, or
other policies that may prevent the adoption of artificial
intelligence systems by the Federal Government to improve
certain functions of the Federal Government, including--
(A) data analysis and processing;
(B) paperwork reduction;
(C) contracting and procurement practices; and
(D) other Federal Government services; and
(3) includes, as the Comptroller General of the United
States considers appropriate, recommendations to modify or
eliminate barriers to the use of artificial intelligence
systems by the Federal Government.
TITLE II--ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE ACCOUNTABILITY
SEC. 201. DEFINITIONS.
In this title:
(1) Appropriate congressional committees.--The term
``appropriate congressional committees'' means--
(A) the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the
Senate;
(B) the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of
Representatives; and
(C) each congressional committee with jurisdiction over an
applicable covered agency.
(2) Artificial intelligence system.--The term ``artificial
intelligence system'' means an engineered system that--
(A) generates outputs, such as content, predictions,
recommendations, or decisions for a given set of human-
defined objectives; and
(B) is designed to operate with varying levels of
adaptability and autonomy using machine and human-based
inputs.
(3) Covered agency.--the term ``covered agency'' means an
agency for which the Under Secretary develops an NIST
recommendation.
(4) Covered internet platform.--
(A) In general.--The term ``covered internet platform''--
(i) means any public-facing website, consumer-facing
internet application, or mobile application available to
consumers in the United States; and
(ii) includes a social network site, video sharing service,
search engine, and content aggregation service.
(B) Exclusions.--The term ``covered internet platform''
does not include a platform that--
(i) is wholly owned, controlled, and operated by a person
that--
(I) during the most recent 180-day period, did not employ
more than 500 employees;
(II) during the most recent 3-year period, averaged less
than $50,000,000 in annual gross receipts; and
(III) on an annual basis, collects or processes the
personal data of less than 1,000,000 individuals; or
(ii) is operated for the sole purpose of conducting
research that is not directly or indirectly made for profit.
(5) Critical-impact ai organization.--The term ``critical-
impact AI organization'' means a non-government organization
that serves as the deployer of a critical-impact artificial
intelligence system.
(6) Critical-impact artificial intelligence system.--The
term ``critical-impact artificial intelligence system'' means
an artificial intelligence system that--
(A) is deployed for a purpose other than solely for use by
the Department of Defense or an intelligence agency (as
defined in section 3094(e) of the National Security Act of
1947 (50 U.S.C. 3094(3)) ; and
(B) is used or intended to be used--
(i) to make decisions that have a legal or similarly
significant effect on--
(I) the real-time or ex post facto collection of biometric
data of natural persons by biometric identification systems
without their consent;
(II) the direct management and operation of critical
infrastructure (as defined in section 1016(e) of the USA
PATRIOT Act (42 U.S.C. 5195c(e)) and space-based
infrastructure; or
(III) criminal justice (as defined in section 901 of title
I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968
(34 U.S.C. 10251)); and
(ii) in a manner that poses a significant risk to rights
afforded under the Constitution of the United States or
safety.
(7) Deployer.--The term ``deployer''--
(A) means an entity that uses or operates an artificial
intelligence system for internal use or for use by third
parties; and
(B) does not include an entity that is solely an end user
of a system.
(8) Developer.--The term ``developer'' means an entity
that--
(A) designs, codes, produces, or owns an artificial
intelligence system for internal use or for use by a third
party as a baseline model; and
(B) does not act as a deployer of the artificial
intelligence system described in subparagraph (A).
(9) Generative artificial intelligence system.--The term
``generative artificial intelligence system'' means an
artificial intelligence system that generates novel data or
content in a written, audio, or visual format.
(10) High-impact artificial intelligence system.--The term
``high-impact artificial intelligence system'' means an
artificial intelligence system--
(A) deployed for a purpose other than solely for use by the
Department of Defense or an intelligence agency (as defined
in section 3094(e) of the National Security Act of 1947 (50
U.S.C. 3094(3)); and
(B) that is specifically developed with the intended
purpose of making decisions that have a legal or similarly
significant effect on the access of an individual to housing,
employment, credit, education, healthcare, or insurance in a
manner that poses a significant risk to rights afforded under
the Constitution of the United States or safety.
(11) NIST recommendation.--The term ``NIST recommendation''
means a sector-specific recommendation developed under
section 22B(b)(1) of the National Institute of Standards and
Technology Act, as added by section 204 of this Act.
(12) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Commerce.
(13) Significant risk.--The term ``significant risk'' means
a combination of severe, high-intensity, high-probability,
and long-duration risk of harm to individuals.
(14) TEVV.--The term ``TEVV'' means the testing,
evaluation, validation, and verification of any artificial
intelligence system that includes--
(A) open, transparent, testable, and verifiable
specifications that characterize realistic operational
performance, such as precision and accuracy for relevant
tasks;
[[Page S5545]]
(B) testing methodologies and metrics that enable the
evaluation of system trustworthiness, including robustness
and resilience;
(C) data quality standards for training and testing
datasets;
(D) requirements for system validation and integration into
production environments, automated testing, and compliance
with existing legal and regulatory specifications;
(E) methods and tools for--
(i) the monitoring of system behavior;
(ii) the tracking of incidents or errors reported and their
management; and
(iii) the detection of emergent properties and related
impacts; and
(F) and processes for redress and response.
(15) Under secretary.--The term ``Under Secretary'' means
the Director of the National Institute of Standards and
Technology.
SEC. 202. GENERATIVE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE TRANSPARENCY.
(a) Prohibition.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), it shall be
unlawful for a person to operate a covered internet platform
that uses a generative artificial intelligence system.
(2) Disclosure of use of generative artificial intelligence
systems.--
(A) In general.--A person may operate a covered internet
platform that uses a generative artificial intelligence
system if the person provides notice to each user of the
covered internet platform that the covered internet platform
uses a generative artificial intelligence system to generate
content the user sees.
(B) Requirements.--A person providing the notice described
in subparagraph (A) to a user--
(i) subject to clause (ii), shall provide the notice in a
clear and conspicuous manner on the covered internet platform
before the user interacts with content produced by a
generative artificial intelligence system; and
(ii) may provide an option for the user to choose to see
the notice described in clause (i) only upon the first
interaction of the user with content produced by a generative
artificial intelligence system.
(b) Enforcement Action.--Upon learning that a covered
internet platform does not comply with the requirements under
this section, the Secretary--
(1) shall immediately--
(A) notify the covered internet platform of the finding;
and
(B) order the covered internet platform to take remedial
action to address the noncompliance of the generative
artificial intelligence system operated by the covered
internet platform; and
(2) may, as determined appropriate or necessary by the
Secretary, take enforcement action under section 208 if the
covered internet platform does not take sufficient action to
remedy the noncompliance within 15 days of the notification
under paragraph (1)(A).
(c) Effective Date.--This section shall take effect on the
date that is 180 days after the date of enactment of this
Act.
SEC. 203. TRANSPARENCY REPORTS FOR HIGH-IMPACT ARTIFICIAL
INTELLIGENCE SYSTEMS.
(a) Transparency Reporting.--
(1) In general.--Each deployer of a high-impact artificial
intelligence system shall--
(A) before deploying the high-impact artificial
intelligence system, and annually thereafter, submit to the
Secretary a report describing the design and safety plans for
the artificial intelligence system; and
(B) submit to the Secretary an updated report on the high-
impact artificial intelligence system if the deployer makes a
material change to--
(i) the purpose for which the high-impact artificial
intelligence system is used; or
(ii) the type of data the high-impact artificial
intelligence system processes or uses for training purposes.
(2) Contents.--Each transparency report submitted under
paragraph (1) shall include, with respect to the high-impact
artificial intelligence system--
(A) the purpose;
(B) the intended use cases;
(C) deployment context;
(D) benefits;
(E) a description of data that the high-impact artificial
intelligence system, once deployed, processes as inputs;
(F) if available--
(i) a list of data categories and formats the deployer used
to retrain or continue training the high-impact artificial
intelligence system;
(ii) metrics for evaluating the high-impact artificial
intelligence system performance and known limitations; and
(iii) transparency measures, including information
identifying to individuals when a high-impact artificial
intelligence system is in use;
(G) processes and testing performed before each deployment
to ensure the high-impact artificial intelligence system is
safe, reliable, and effective;
(H) if applicable, an identification of any third-party
artificial intelligence systems or datasets the deployer
relies on to train or operate the high-impact artificial
intelligence system; and
(I) post-deployment monitoring and user safeguards,
including a description of the oversight process in place to
address issues as issues arise.
(b) Developer Obligations.--The developer of a high-impact
artificial intelligence system shall be subject to the same
obligations as a developer of a critical impact artificial
intelligence system under section 206(c).
(c) Considerations.--In carrying out subsection (a) and
(b), a deployer or developer of a high-impact artificial
intelligence system shall consider the best practices
outlined in the most recent version of the risk management
framework developed pursuant to section 22A(c) of the
National Institute of Standards and Technology Act (15 U.S.C.
278h-1(c)).
(d) Noncompliance and Enforcement Action.--Upon learning
that a deployer of a high-impact artificial intelligence
system is not in compliance with the requirements under this
section with respect to a high-impact artificial intelligence
system, the Secretary--
(1) shall immediately--
(A) notify the deployer of the finding; and
(B) order the deployer to immediately submit to the
Secretary the report required under subsection (a)(1); and
(2) if the deployer fails to submit the report by the date
that is 15 days after the date of the notification under
paragraph (1)(A), may take enforcement action under section
208.
(e) Avoidance of Duplication.--
(1) In general.--Pursuant to the deconfliction of
duplicative requirements under paragraph (2), the Secretary
shall ensure that the requirements under this section are not
unnecessarily burdensome or duplicative of requirements made
or oversight conducted by a covered agency regarding the non-
Federal use of high-impact artificial intelligence systems.
(2) Deconfliction of duplicative requirements.--Not later
than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, and
annually thereafter, the Secretary, in coordination with the
head of any relevant covered agency, shall complete the
deconfliction of duplicative requirements relating to the
submission of a transparency report for a high-impact
artificial intelligence system under this section.
(f) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be
construed to require a deployer of a high-impact artificial
intelligence system to disclose any information, including
data or algorithms--
(1) relating to a trade secret or other protected
intellectual property right;
(2) that is confidential business information; or
(3) that is privileged.
SEC. 204. RECOMMENDATIONS TO FEDERAL AGENCIES FOR RISK
MANAGEMENT OF HIGH-IMPACT ARTIFICIAL
INTELLIGENCE SYSTEMS.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology Act (15
U.S.C. 278h-1) is amended by inserting after section 22A the
following:
``SEC. 22B. RECOMMENDATIONS TO FEDERAL AGENCIES FOR SECTOR-
SPECIFIC OVERSIGHT OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE.
``(a) Definition of High-impact Artificial Intelligence
System.--In this section, the term `high-impact artificial
intelligence system' means an artificial intelligence
system--
``(1) deployed for purposes other than those solely for use
by the Department of Defense or an element of the
intelligence community (as defined in section 3 of the
National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 3003)); and
``(2) that is specifically developed with the intended
purpose of making decisions that have a legal or similarly
significant effect on the access of an individual to housing,
employment, credit, education, health care, or insurance in a
manner that poses a significant risk to rights afforded under
the Constitution of the United States or to safety.
``(b) Sector-specific Recommendations.--Not later than 1
year after the date of the enactment of the Artificial
Intelligence Research, Innovation, and Accountability Act of
2023, the Director shall--
``(1) develop sector-specific recommendations for
individual Federal agencies to conduct oversight of the non-
Federal, and, as appropriate, Federal use of high-impact
artificial intelligence systems to improve the safe and
responsible use of such systems; and
``(2) not less frequently than biennially, update the
sector-specific recommendations to account for changes in
technological capabilities or artificial intelligence use
cases.
``(c) Requirements.--In developing recommendations under
subsection (b), the Director shall use the voluntary risk
management framework required by section 22A(c) to identify
and provide recommendations to a Federal agency--
``(1) to establish regulations, standards, guidelines, best
practices, methodologies, procedures, or processes to
facilitate oversight of non-Federal use of high-impact
artificial intelligence systems;
``(2) to mitigate risks from such high-impact artificial
intelligence systems.
``(d) Recommendations.--In developing recommendations under
subsection (b), the Director may include the following:
``(1) Key design choices made during high-impact artificial
intelligence model development, including rationale and
assumptions made.
``(2) Intended use and users, other possible use cases,
including any anticipated undesirable or potentially harmful
use cases, and what good faith efforts model developers can
take to mitigate the use of the system in harmful ways.
``(3) Methods for evaluating the safety of high-impact
artificial intelligence systems and approaches for
responsible use.
[[Page S5546]]
``(4) Sector-specific differences in what constitutes
acceptable high-impact artificial intelligence model
functionality and trustworthiness, metrics used to determine
high-impact artificial intelligence model performance, and
any test results reflecting application of these metrics to
evaluate high-impact artificial intelligence model
performance across different sectors.
``(5) Recommendations to support iterative development of
subsequent recommendations under subsection (b).
``(e) Consultation.--In developing recommendations under
subsection (b), the Director shall, as the Director considers
applicable and practicable, consult with relevant covered
agencies and stakeholders representing perspectives from
civil society, academia, technologists, engineers, and
creators.''.
SEC. 205. OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET OVERSIGHT OF
RECOMMENDATIONS TO AGENCIES.
(a) Recommendations.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Under Secretary shall submit to
the Director, the head each covered agency, and the
appropriate congressional committees each NIST
recommendation.
(2) Agency responses to recommendations.--Not later than 90
days after the date on which the Under Secretary submits a
NIST recommendation to the head of a covered agency under
paragraph (1), the head of the covered agency shall transmit
to the Director a formal written response to the NIST
recommendation that--
(A) indicates whether the head of the covered agency
intends to--
(i) carry out procedures to adopt the complete NIST
recommendation;
(ii) carry out procedures to adopt a part of the NIST
recommendation; or
(iii) refuse to carry out procedures to adopt the NIST
recommendation; and
(B) includes--
(i) with respect to a formal written response described in
clause (i) or (ii) of subparagraph (A), a copy of a proposed
timetable for completing the procedures described in that
clause;
(ii) with respect to a formal written response described in
subparagraph (A)(ii), the reasons for the refusal to carry
out procedures with respect to the remainder of the NIST
recommendation described in that subparagraph; and
(iii) with respect to a formal written response described
in subparagraph (A)(iii), the reasons for the refusal to
carry out procedures.
(b) Public Availability.--The Director shall make a copy of
each NIST recommendation and each written formal response of
a covered agency required under subsection (a)(2) available
to the public at reasonable cost.
(c) Reporting Requirements.--
(1) Annual secretarial regulatory status reports.--
(A) In general.--On the first February 1 occurring after
the date of enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter
until the date described in subparagraph (B), the head of
each covered agency shall submit to the Director a report
containing the regulatory status of each NIST recommendation.
(B) Continued reporting.--The date described in this
subparagraph is the date on which the head of a covered
agency--
(i) takes final regulatory action with respect to a NIST
recommendation; and
(ii) determines and states in a report required under
subparagraph (A) that no regulatory action should be taken
with respect to a NIST recommendation.
(2) Compliance report to congress.--On April 1 of each
year, the Director shall--
(A) review the reports received under paragraph (1)(A); and
(B) transmit comments on the reports to the heads of
covered agencies and the appropriate congressional
committees.
(3) Failure to report.--If, on March 1 of each year, the
Director has not received a report required under paragraph
(1)(A) from the head of a covered agency, the Director shall
notify the appropriate congressional committees of the
failure.
(d) Technical Assistance in Carrying Out Recommendations.--
The Under Secretary shall provide assistance to the heads of
covered agencies relating to the implementation of the NIST
recommendations the heads of covered agencies intend to carry
out.
(e) Regulation Review and Improvement.--The Administrator
of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of the
Office of Management and Budget, in consultation with the
Under Secretary, shall develop and periodically revise
performance indicators and measures for sector-specific
regulation of artificial intelligence.
SEC. 206. RISK MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT FOR CRITICAL-IMPACT
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE SYSTEMS.
(a) Requirement.--
(1) In general.--Each critical-impact AI organization shall
perform a risk management assessment in accordance with this
section.
(2) Assessment.--Each critical-impact AI organization
shall--
(A) not later than 30 days before the date on which a
critical-impact artificial intelligence system is made
publicly available by the critical-impact AI organization,
perform a risk management assessment; and
(B) not less frequently than biennially during the period
beginning on the date of enactment of this Act and ending on
the date on which the applicable critical-impact artificial
intelligence system is no longer being made publicly
available by the critical-impact AI organization, as
applicable, conduct an updated risk management assessment
that--
(i) may find that no significant changes were made to the
critical-impact artificial intelligence system; and
(ii) provides, to the extent practicable, aggregate results
of any significant deviation from expected performance
detailed in the assessment performed under subparagraph (A)
or the most recent assessment performed under this
subparagraph.
(3) Review.--
(A) In general.--Not later than 90 days after the date of
completion of a risk management assessment by a critical-
impact AI organization under this section, the critical-
impact AI organization shall submit to the Secretary a
report--
(i) outlining the assessment performed under this section;
and
(ii) that is in a consistent format, as determined by the
Secretary.
(B) Additional information.--Subject to subsection (d), the
Secretary may request that a critical-impact AI organization
submit to the Secretary any related additional or clarifying
information with respect to a risk management assessment
performed under this section.
(4) Limitation.-- The Secretary may not prohibit a
critical-impact AI organization from making a critical-impact
artificial intelligence system available to the public based
on the review by the Secretary of a report submitted under
paragraph (3)(A) or additional or clarifying information
submitted under paragraph (3)(B).
(b) Assessment Subject Areas.--Each assessment performed by
a critical-impact AI organization under subsection (a) shall
describe the means by which the critical-impact AI
organization is addressing, through a documented TEVV
process, the following categories:
(1) Policies, processes, procedures, and practices across
the organization relating to transparent and effective
mapping, measuring, and managing of artificial intelligence
risks, including--
(A) how the organization understands, manages, and
documents legal and regulatory requirements involving
artificial intelligence;
(B) how the organization integrates characteristics of
trustworthy artificial intelligence, which include valid,
reliable, safe, secure, resilient, accountable, transparent,
globally and locally explainable, interpretable, privacy-
enhanced, and fair with harmful bias managed, into
organizational policies, processes, procedures, and
practices;
(C) a methodology to determine the needed level of risk
management activities based on the organization's risk
tolerance; and
(D) how the organization establishes risk management
processes and outcomes through transparent policies,
procedures, and other controls based on organizational risk
priorities.
(2) The structure, context, and capabilities of the
critical-impact artificial intelligence system or critical-
impact foundation model, including--
(A) how the context was established and understood;
(B) capabilities, targeted uses, goals, and expected costs
and benefits; and
(C) how risks and benefits are mapped for each system
component.
(3) A description of how the organization employs
quantitative, qualitative, or mixed-method tools, techniques,
and methodologies to analyze, assess, benchmark, and monitor
artificial intelligence risk, including--
(A) identification of appropriate methods and metrics;
(B) how artificial intelligence systems are evaluated for
trustworthy characteristics;
(C) mechanisms for tracking artificial intelligence system
risks over time; and
(D) processes for gathering and assessing feedback relating
to the efficacy of measurement.
(4) A description of allocation of risk resources to map
and measure risks on a regular basis as described in
paragraph (1), including--
(A) how artificial intelligence risks based on assessments
and other analytical outputs described in paragraphs (2) and
(3) are prioritized, responded to, and managed;
(B) how strategies to maximize artificial intelligence
benefits and minimize negative impacts were planned,
prepared, implemented, documented, and informed by input from
relevant artificial intelligence deployers;
(C) management of artificial intelligence system risks and
benefits; and
(D) regular monitoring of risk treatments, including
response and recovery, and communication plans for the
identified and measured artificial intelligence risks, as
applicable.
(c) Developer Obligations.--The developer of a critical-
impact artificial intelligence system that agrees through a
contract or license to provide technology or services to a
deployer of the critical-impact artificial intelligence
system shall provide to the deployer of the critical-impact
artificial intelligence system the information reasonably
necessary for the deployer to comply with the requirements
under subsection (a), including--
[[Page S5547]]
(1) an overview of the data used in training the baseline
artificial intelligence system provided by the developer,
including--
(A) data size;
(B) data sources;
(C) copyrighted data; and
(D) personal identifiable information;
(2) documentation outlining the structure and context of
the baseline artificial intelligence system of the developer,
including--
(A) input modality;
(B) output modality;
(C) model size; and
(D) model architecture;
(3) known capabilities, limitations, and risks of the
baseline artificial intelligence system of the developer at
the time of the development of the artificial intelligence
system; and
(4) documentation for downstream use, including--
(A) a statement of intended purpose;
(B) guidelines for the intended use of the artificial
intelligence system, including a list of permitted,
restricted, and prohibited uses and users; and
(C) a statement of the potential for deviation from the
intended purpose of the baseline artificial intelligence
system.
(d) Termination of Obligation to Disclose Information.--
(1) In general.--The obligation of a critical-impact AI
organization to provide information, upon request of the
Secretary, relating to a specific assessment category under
subsection (b) shall end on the date of issuance of a
relevant standard applicable to the same category of a
critical -impact artificial intelligence system by--
(A) the Secretary under section 207(c) with respect to a
critical-impact artificial intelligence system;
(B) another department or agency of the Federal Government,
as determined applicable by the Secretary; or
(C) a non-governmental standards organization, as
determined appropriate by the Secretary.
(2) Effect of new standard.--In adopting any standard
applicable to critical-impact artificial intelligence systems
under section 207(c), the Secretary shall--
(A) identify the category under subsection (b) to which the
standard relates, if any; and
(B) specify the information that is no longer required to
be included in a report required under subsection (a) as a
result of the new standard.
(e) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be
construed to require a critical-impact AI organization, or
permit the Secretary, to disclose any information, including
data or algorithms--
(1) relating to a trade secret or other protected
intellectual property right;
(2) that is confidential business information; or
(3) that is privileged.
SEC. 207. CERTIFICATION OF CRITICAL-IMPACT ARTIFICIAL
INTELLIGENCE SYSTEMS.
(a) Establishment of Artificial Intelligence Certification
Advisory Committee.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall establish an
advisory committee to provide advice and recommendations on
TEVV standards and the certification of critical-impact
artificial intelligence systems.
(2) Duties.--The advisory committee established under this
section shall advise the Secretary on matters relating to the
testing and certification of critical-impact artificial
intelligence systems, including by--
(A) providing recommendations to the Secretary on proposed
TEVV standards to ensure such standards--
(i) maximize alignment and interoperability with standards
issued by nongovernmental standards organizations and
international standards bodies;
(ii) are performance-based and impact-based; and
(iii) are applicable or necessary to facilitate the
deployment of critical-impact artificial intelligence systems
in a transparent, secure, and safe manner;
(B) reviewing prospective TEVV standards submitted by the
Secretary to ensure such standards align with recommendations
under subparagraph (A);
(C) upon completion of the review under subparagraph (B),
providing consensus recommendations to the Secretary on--
(i) whether a TEVV standard should be issued, modified,
revoked, or added; and
(ii) if such a standard should be issued, how best to align
the standard with the considerations described in subsection
(c)(2) and recommendations described in subparagraph (A); and
(D) reviewing and providing advice and recommendations on
the plan and subsequent updates to the plan submitted under
subsection (b).
(3) Composition.--The advisory committee established under
this subsection shall be composed of not more than 15 members
with a balanced composition of representatives of the private
sector, institutions of higher education, and non-profit
organizations, including--
(A) representatives of--
(i) institutions of higher education;
(ii) companies developing or operating artificial
intelligence systems;
(iii) consumers or consumer advocacy groups; and
(iv) enabling technology companies; and
(B) any other members the Secretary considers to be
appropriate.
(b) Artificial Intelligence Certification Plan.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall establish a 3-year
implementation plan for the certification of critical-impact
artificial intelligence systems.
(2) Periodic update.--The Secretary shall periodically
update the plan established under paragraph (1).
(3) Contents.--The plan established under paragraph (1)
shall include--
(A) a methodology for gathering and using relevant,
objective, and available information relating to TEVV;
(B) a process for considering whether prescribing certain
TEVV standards under subsection (c) for critical-impact
artificial intelligence systems is appropriate, necessary, or
duplicative of existing international standards;
(C) if TEVV standards are considered appropriate, a process
for prescribing such standards for critical-impact artificial
intelligence systems; and
(D) an outline of standards proposed to be issued,
including an estimation of the timeline and sequencing of
such standards.
(4) Consultation.--In developing the plan required under
paragraph (1), the Secretary shall consult the following:
(A) The National Artificial Intelligence Initiative Office.
(B) The interagency committee established under section
5103 of the National Artificial Intelligence Initiative Act
of 2020 (15 U.S.C. 9413).
(C) The National Artificial Intelligence Advisory
Committee.
(D) Industry consensus standards issued by non-governmental
standards organizations.
(E) Other departments, agencies, and instrumentalities of
the Federal Government, as considered appropriate by the
Secretary.
(5) Submission to certification advisory committee.--Upon
completing the initial plan required under this subsection
and upon completing periodic updates to the plan under
paragraph (2), the Secretary shall submit the plan to the
advisory committee established under subsection (a) for
review.
(6) Submission to committees of congress.--Upon completing
the plan required under this subsection, the Secretary shall
submit to the relevant committees of Congress a report
containing the plan.
(7) Limitation.--The Secretary may not issue TEVV standards
under subsection (c) until the date of the submission of the
plan under paragraphs (5) and (6).
(c) Standards.--
(1) Standards.--
(A) In general.--The Secretary shall issue TEVV standards
for critical-impact artificial intelligence systems.
(B) Requirements.--Each standard issued under this
subsection shall--
(i) be practicable;
(ii) meet the need for safe, secure, and transparent
operations of critical-impact artificial intelligence
systems;
(iii) with respect to a relevant standard issued by a non-
governmental standards organization that is already in place,
align with and be interoperable with that standard;
(iv) provide for a mechanism to, not less frequently than
once every 2 years, solicit public comment and update the
standard to reflect advancements in technology and system
architecture; and
(v) be stated in objective terms.
(2) Considerations.--In issuing TEVV standards for
critical-impact artificial intelligence systems under this
subsection, the Secretary shall--
(A) consider relevant available information concerning
critical-impact artificial intelligence systems, including--
(i) transparency reports submitted under section 203(a);
(ii) risk management assessments conducted under section
206(a); and
(iii) any additional information provided to the Secretary
pursuant to section 203(a)(1)(B);
(B) consider whether a proposed standard is reasonable,
practicable, and appropriate for the particular type of
critical-impact artificial intelligence system for which the
standard is proposed;
(C) consult with relevant artificial intelligence
stakeholders and review industry standards issued by
nongovernmental standards organizations;
(D) pursuant to paragraph (1)(B)(iii), consider whether
adoption of a relevant standard issued by a nongovernmental
standards organization as a TEVV standard is the most
appropriate action; and
(E) consider whether the standard takes into account--
(i) transparent, replicable, and objective assessments of
critical-impact artificial intelligence system risk,
structure, capabilities, and design;
(ii) the risk posed to the public by an applicable
critical-impact artificial intelligence system; and
(iii) the diversity of methodologies and innovative
technologies and approaches available to meet the objectives
of the standard.
(3) Consultation.--Before finalizing a TEVV standard issued
under this subsection, the Secretary shall submit the TEVV
standard to the advisory committee established under
subsection (a) for review.
(4) Public comment.--Before issuing any TEVV standard under
this subsection, the
[[Page S5548]]
Secretary shall provide an opportunity for public comment.
(5) Cooperation.--In developing a TEVV standard under this
subsection, the Secretary may, as determined appropriate,
advise, assist, and cooperate with departments, agencies, and
instrumentalities of the Federal Government, States, and
other public and private agencies.
(6) Effective date of standards.--
(A) In general.--The Secretary shall specify the effective
date of a TEVV standard issued under this subsection in the
order issuing the standard.
(B) Limitation.--Subject to subparagraph (C), a TEVV
standard issued under this subsection may not become
effective--
(i) during the 180-day period following the date on which
the TEVV standard is issued; and
(ii) more than 1 year after the date on which the TEVV
standard is issued.
(C) Exception.--Subparagraph (B) shall not apply to the
effective date of a TEVV standard issued under this section
if the Secretary--
(i) finds, for good cause shown, that a different effective
date is in the public interest; and
(ii) publishes the reasons for the finding under clause
(i).
(7) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this subsection shall
be construed to authorize the Secretary to impose any
requirements on or take any enforcement actions under this
section or section 208 relating to a critical-impact AI
organization before a TEVV standard relating to those
requirements is prescribed.
(d) Exemptions.--
(1) Authority to exempt and procedures.--
(A) In general.--The Secretary may exempt, on a temporary
basis, a critical-impact artificial intelligence system from
a TEVV standard issued under subsection (c) on terms the
Secretary considers appropriate.
(B) Renewal.--An exemption under subparagraph (A)--
(i) may be renewed only on reapplication; and
(ii) shall conform to the requirements of this paragraph.
(C) Proceedings.--
(i) In general.--The Secretary may begin a proceeding to
grant an exemption to a critical-impact artificial
intelligence system under this paragraph if the critical-
impact AI organization that deployed the critical-impact
artificial intelligence systems applies for an exemption or a
renewal of an exemption.
(ii) Notice and comment.--The Secretary shall publish
notice of the application under clause (i) and provide an
opportunity to comment.
(iii) Filing.--An application for an exemption or for a
renewal of an exemption under this paragraph shall be filed
at such time and in such manner and contain such information
as the Secretary may require.
(D) Actions.--The Secretary may grant an exemption under
this paragraph upon finding that--
(i) the exemption is consistent with the public interest
and this section; and
(ii) the exemption would facilitate the development or
evaluation of a feature or characteristic of a critical-
impact artificial intelligence system providing a safety and
security level that is not less than the TEVV standard level.
(2) Disclosure.--Not later than 30 days after the date on
which an application is filed under this subsection, the
Secretary may make public information contained in the
application or relevant to the application, unless the
information concerns or is related to a trade secret or other
confidential information not relevant to the application.
(3) Notice of decision.--The Secretary shall publish in the
Federal Register a notice of each decision granting or
denying an exemption under this subsection and the reasons
for granting or denying that exemption, including a
justification with supporting information for the selected
approach.
(e) Self-certification of Compliance.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), with respect to
each critical-impact artificial intelligence system of a
critical-impact AI organization, the critical-impact AI
organization shall certify to the Secretary that the
critical-impact artificial intelligence system complies with
applicable TEVV standards issued under this section.
(2) Exception.--A critical-impact AI organization may not
issue a certificate under paragraph (1) if, in exercising
reasonable care, the critical-impact AI organization has
constructive knowledge that the certificate is false or
misleading in a material respect.
(f) Noncompliance Findings and Enforcement Action.--
(1) Finding of noncompliance by secretary.--Upon learning
that a critical-impact artificial intelligence system
deployed by a critical-impact AI organization does not comply
with the requirements under this section, the Secretary
shall--
(A) immediately--
(i) notify the critical-impact AI organization of the
finding; and
(ii) order the critical-impact AI organization to take
remedial action to address the noncompliance of the
artificial intelligence system; and
(B) may, as determined appropriate or necessary by the
Secretary, and if the Secretary determines that actions taken
by a critical-impact AI organization are insufficient to
remedy the noncompliance of the critical-impact AI
organization with this section, take enforcement action under
section 208.
(2) Actions by critical-impact ai organization.--If a
critical-impact AI organization finds that a critical-impact
artificial intelligence system deployed by the critical-
impact AI organization is noncompliant with an applicable
TEVV standard issued under this section or the critical-
impact AI organization is notified of noncompliance by the
Secretary under paragraph (1)(A)(i), the critical-impact AI
organization shall--
(A) without undue delay, notify the Secretary by certified
mail or electronic mail of the noncompliance or receipt of
the notification of noncompliance;
(B) take remedial action to address the noncompliance; and
(C) not later than 10 days after the date of the
notification or receipt under subparagraph (A), submit to the
Secretary a report containing information on--
(i) the nature and discovery of the noncompliant aspect of
the critical-impact artificial intelligence system;
(ii) measures taken to remedy such noncompliance; and
(iii) actions taken by the critical-impact AI organization
to address stakeholders affected by such noncompliance.
SEC. 208. ENFORCEMENT.
(a) In General.--Upon discovering noncompliance with a
provision of this Act by a deployer of a high-impact
artificial intelligence system or a critical-impact AI
organization if the Secretary determines that actions taken
by the critical-impact AI organization are insufficient to
remedy the noncompliance, the Secretary shall take an action
described in this section.
(b) Civil Penalties.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary may impose a penalty
described in paragraph (2) on deployer of a high-impact
artificial intelligence system or a critical-impact AI
organization for each violation by that entity of this Act or
any regulation or order issued under this Act.
(2) Penalty described.--The penalty described in this
paragraph is the greater of--
(A) an amount not to exceed $300,000; or
(B) an amount that is twice the value of the transaction
that is the basis of the violation with respect to which the
penalty is imposed.
(c) Violation With Intent.--
(1) In general.--If the Secretary determines that a
deployer of a high-impact artificial intelligence system or a
critical-impact AI organization intentionally violates this
Act or any regulation or order issued under this Act, the
Secretary may prohibit the critical-impact AI organization
from deploying a critical-impact artificial intelligence
system.
(2) In addition .--A prohibition imposed under paragraph
(1) shall be in addition to any other civil penalties
provided under this Act.
(d) Factors.--The Secretary may by regulation provide
standards for establishing levels of civil penalty under this
section based upon factors such as the seriousness of the
violation, the culpability of the violator, and such
mitigating factors as the violator's record of cooperation
with the Secretary in disclosing the violation.
(e) Civil Action.--
(1) In general.--Upon referral by the Secretary, the
Attorney General may bring a civil action in a United States
district court to--
(A) enjoin a violation of section 207; or
(B) collect a civil penalty upon a finding of noncompliance
with this Act.
(2) Venue.--A civil action may be brought under paragraph
(1) in the judicial district in which the violation occurred
or the defendant is found, resides, or does business.
(3) Process.--Process in a civil action under paragraph (1)
may be served in any judicial district in which the defendant
resides or is found.
(f) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be
construed to require a developer of a critical-impact
artificial intelligence system to disclose any information,
including data or algorithms--
(1) relating to a trade secret or other protected
intellectual property right;
(2) that is confidential business information; or
(3) that is privileged.
SEC. 209. ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE CONSUMER EDUCATION.
(a) Establishment.--Not later than 180 days after the date
of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall establish a
working group relating to responsible education efforts for
artificial intelligence systems.
(b) Membership.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall appoint to serve as
members of the working group established under this section
not more than 15 individuals with expertise relating to
artificial intelligence systems, including--
(A) representatives of--
(i) institutions of higher education;
(ii) companies developing or operating artificial
intelligence systems;
(iii) consumers or consumer advocacy groups;
(iv) public health organizations;
(v) marketing professionals;
(vi) entities with national experience relating to consumer
education, including technology education;
(vii) public safety organizations;
[[Page S5549]]
(viii) rural workforce development advocates;
(ix) enabling technology companies; and
(x) nonprofit technology industry trade associations; and
(B) any other members the Secretary considers to be
appropriate.
(2) Compensation.--A member of the working group
established under this section shall serve without
compensation.
(c) Duties.--
(1) In general.--The working group established under this
section shall--
(A) identify recommended education and programs that may be
voluntarily employed by industry to inform--
(i) consumers and other stakeholders with respect to
artificial intelligence systems as those systems--
(I) become available; or
(II) are soon to be made widely available for public use or
consumption; and
(B) submit to Congress, and make available to the public, a
report containing the findings and recommendations under
subparagraph (A).
(2) Factors for consideration.--The working group
established under this section shall take into consideration
topics relating to--
(A) the intent, capabilities, and limitations of artificial
intelligence systems;
(B) use cases of artificial intelligence applications that
improve lives of the people of the United States, such as
improving government efficiency, filling critical roles, and
reducing mundane work tasks;
(C) artificial intelligence research breakthroughs;
(D) engagement and interaction methods, including how to
adequately inform consumers of interaction with an artificial
intelligence system;
(E) human-machine interfaces;
(F) emergency fallback scenarios;
(G) operational boundary responsibilities;
(H) potential mechanisms that could change function
behavior in service; and
(I) consistent nomenclature and taxonomy for safety
features and systems.
(3) Consultation.--The Secretary shall consult with the
Chair of the Federal Trade Commission with respect to the
recommendations of the working group established under this
section, as appropriate.
(d) Termination.--The working group established under this
section shall terminate on the date that is 2 years after the
date of enactment of this Act.
______
By Ms. COLLINS (for herself and Mr. Cardin):
S. 3326. A bill to improve access to opioid use disorder treatment
services under the Medicare program; to the Committee on Finance.
Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I rise to introduce the Supporting
Seniors with Opioid Use Disorder Act with my colleague from Maryland,
Senator Cardin. I very much appreciate his leadership on this issue.
The United States is experiencing an opioid overdose and addiction
crisis with devastating effects on communities across the country. The
opioid epidemic is claiming the lives of far too many people, with a
record 716 Mainers and nearly 110,000 Americans lost in 2022. While
many perceive the face of opioid addiction as young, the epidemic harms
older adults as well. In Maine, approximately 12 percent of drug
overdose deaths last year were among residents age 60 and older.
Each and every opioid death is preventable, and more can be done to
ensure that the unique needs of older Americans struggling with
addiction are not forgotten. In December 2021, the Department of Health
and Human Services Office of the Inspector General, OIG, identified an
urgent need to increase the number of Medicare beneficiaries receiving
treatment for opioid use disorder. The legislation we are introducing
today would help improve seniors' awareness of, and access to, opioid
use disorder, OUD, treatment covered by the Medicare Program.
The challenges of the pandemic, combined with the increased
prevalence of fentanyl entering our country, have aggravated this
national crisis. Even before COVID-19, however, the number of people
age 55 or older treated in emergency rooms for nonfatal opioid
overdoses was increasing, with a shocking 32 percent jump in ER visits
from 2016 to 2017. In 2018, when I served as chairman of the Senate
Special Committee on Aging, I chaired a hearing on this topic to shed
light on the unique challenges faced by this often-overlooked
population. One expert witness told the Aging Committee, ``Medicare
beneficiaries are the fastest growing population of diagnosed opioid
use disorders.'' Dr. Charles Pattavina, an emergency medicine physician
in Bangor, ME, also explained how increased incidences of acute
illnesses and injuries among older Americans make them more susceptible
to opioid misuse.
In 2021, the Office of the Inspector General investigated the extent
to which Medicare beneficiaries diagnosed with opioid use disorder
received medication and behavioral therapy through Medicare. The report
found that more than 1 million Medicare beneficiaries were diagnosed
with OUD in 2020, yet fewer than 16 percent of those patients received
medication to treat their OUD. The report also concluded that older
beneficiaries were three times less likely to receive medication to
treat their OUD than younger beneficiaries. Even fewer beneficiaries
received both medication and behavioral therapy. The conclusion was
clear: Medicare beneficiaries are not receiving the OUD treatment they
need.
A followup OIG report from September 2022 revealed that the situation
has largely failed to improve over time. About 50,400 Part D
beneficiaries experienced an opioid overdose--from prescription
opioids, illicit opioids, or both--during 2021. While the overall
proportion of beneficiaries with opioid use disorder receiving
medication increased slightly from 16 percent in 2020 to 18 percent in
2021, still fewer than one in five Medicare beneficiaries received the
medication they need. This report echoed the call to implement the 2021
OIG recommendations.
The Supporting Seniors with Opioid Use Disorder Act would put into
law the recommendations made by the HHS OIG regarding how to improve
beneficiaries' awareness of Medicare coverage for OUD treatment and how
to identify gaps and opportunities to better meet the needs of this
unique population. Specifically, our legislation would require CMS to
conduct additional outreach to beneficiaries to increase awareness
about Medicare coverage for the treatment of OUD, such as by revising
enrollment materials, making State and national contact information for
healthcare providers publicly available and easily accessible, and
developing or improving continuing education programs about opioid
medications and substance use disorder treatment programs. Our bill
would also improve data sharing within Agencies at HHS with the goal of
obtaining a better understanding of current treatment gaps.
Finally, the bill would require HHS to convene a stakeholder meeting
to share best practices on the use of behavioral therapy among
beneficiaries receiving medication to treat opioid use disorder.
Emerging research points to evidence that patients receiving medication
to treat opioid use disorder may also benefit from behavioral therapy,
so this opportunity for collaboration on strategies to support better
treatment engagement and continuity could be beneficial to both
patients and healthcare professionals.
The drug crisis continues to ravage our country, and it is critical
that people who are suffering from opioid use disorder have access to
the treatment they need to survive and thrive--including our seniors.
Challenges in treatment and recovery will persist, but we can begin by
better supporting older Americans' access to opioid use disorder
services and by strengthening our understanding of potential
disparities in treatment. I urge my colleagues to support this
important legislation.
______
By Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Mr. Graham, Mr. Whitehouse, Mr.
Cornyn, Ms. Klobuchar, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Blumenthal, Mr. Tillis,
and Ms. Hirono):
S. 3328. A bill to exempt for an additional 4-year period, from the
application of the means-test presumption of abuse under chapter 7,
qualifying members of reserve components of the Armed Forces and
members of the National Guard who, after September 11, 2001, are called
to active duty or to perform a homeland defense activity for not less
than 90 days; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of
the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 3328
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``National Guard and
Reservists Debt Relief Extension Act of 2023''.
[[Page S5550]]
SEC. 2. NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVISTS DEBT RELIEF AMENDMENT.
Section 4(b) of the National Guard and Reservists Debt
Relief Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-438; 122 Stat. 5000) is
amended by striking ``15-year'' and inserting ``19-year''.
____________________