[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''.

                          ____________________