[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 78 (Monday, May 6, 2024)]
[House]
[Pages H2844-H2846]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
COMMENT INTEGRITY AND MANAGEMENT ACT OF 2024
Mr. LaTURNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 7528) to amend section 206 of the E-Government Act of 2002
to improve the integrity and management of mass comments and computer-
generated comments in the regulatory review process, and for other
purposes, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 7528
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 ``Comment Integrity and
Management Act of 2024''.
SEC. 2. PURPOSE.
The purpose of this Act is to help Federal agencies manage
mass and computer-generated comments in the Federal
regulatory process. This should in no way be understood to
discourage mass comments, which are a vital part of the
regulatory process.
SEC. 3. IMPROVING INTEGRITY AND MANAGEMENT OF MASS COMMENTS
AND COMPUTER-GENERATED COMMENTS IN THE
REGULATORY REVIEW PROCESS.
(a) In General.-- Section 206 of the E-Government Act of
2002 (Public Law 107-347; 44 U.S.C. 3501 note) is amended
by--
(1) redesignating subsection (e) as subsection (f); and
(2) inserting after subsection (d) the following:
``(e) Information Integrity.--
``(1) Verification of electronic submissions.--With respect
to each comment accepted by electronic means under subsection
(c), in accordance with the guidance established by Director
in paragraph (3), the head of an agency shall verify, to the
greatest extent possible, at the time the comment is
submitted, whether the comment has been submitted by a human
being.
``(2) Identification and management of mass comments.--
[[Page H2845]]
``(A) Identification of mass comments.--With respect to
each comment accepted by electronic means under subsection
(c) by the head of an agency, the head of the agency shall--
``(i) to the extent practicable, reasonably determine
whether such comment is a mass comment; and
``(ii) in the case that the agency has made a reasonable
determination that the comment is a mass comment, indicate on
any publicly available copy of the comment, or comment
variations, (through a label or indicator, and in a machine
and human readable format) that the comment is part of a mass
comment submission; and
``(B) Handling of mass comments.--Notwithstanding
subsection (d)(2)(A), instead of making available through the
electronic docket of the agency each comment identified as a
mass comment under paragraph (2), the head of an agency may--
``(i) make available through such docket only a single
representative sample of each such mass comment; or
``(ii) in the case where mass comments take the form of
variations on certain standardized but not identical language
the agency make available through such docket a single copy
of one of the variations of the mass comment.
``(C) Number of submissions.--In case in which the head of
an agency makes available through such docket a single
representative sample or a single copy of one of the
variations of a mass comment under subparagraph (B), the head
of the agency shall indicate (through a label or indicator,
and in a machine and human readable format), on the sample or
copy made available, the number of submissions that were
determined to be identical, or substantively identical to the
sample or copy made available on such docket.
``(3) OMB guidance.--
``(A) Guidance.--Not later than 240 days after the date of
the enactment of this subsection, the Director, in
consultation with the Administrator of General Services,
shall issue guidance to the heads of each agency on the
implementation of the requirements of this subsection.
``(B) Contents of guidance.--The guidance issued pursuant
to subparagraph (A) shall include recommendations for
agencies on how to best manage comments accepted by
electronic means, including recommendations on how to do the
following:
``(i) Use technology tools and procedures that verify, to
the greatest extent possible, whether a comment is being
submitted by a human being.
``(ii) Identify mass comments, including how to leverage
software tools to identify whether a comment is a mass
comment.
``(iii) Indicate (through a label or indicator, and in a
machine- and human-readable format), that a comment is a mass
comment.
``(iv) Use new technology to offer new opportunities for
public participation in the rulemaking process.
``(C) Updates.--The Director, in consultation with the
Administrator of General Services, may update the guidance
issued pursuant to subparagraph (A), as determined necessary
by the Director.
``(4) Policies concerning posting and consideration of
computer-generated comments and mass comments.--
``(A) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
the enactment of this subsection, the head of each agency
shall establish a policy with respect to the posting and
consideration of computer-generated comments and mass-
comments during the rulemaking process of the agency that is
consistent with--
``(i) the requirements of paragraph (2); and
``(ii) the guidance issued under paragraph (3).
``(B) Availability of policy.--Not later than 60 days after
the date on which the head of an agency establishes a policy
pursuant to subparagraph (A), the head of the agency shall,
to the extent practicable, post the policy on the website
through which an agency makes comments available pursuant to
subsection (d)(2)(A).
``(C) Update to policy.--The policy established pursuant to
subparagraph (A)--
``(i) shall be updated as necessary to make such guidance
consistent with any updates to the guidance issued under
paragraph (3); and
``(ii) may be updated by the head of the agency, in
consultation with the Director, as the head of the agency
determines appropriate.
``(5) Exception to time limitation for implementation.--The
requirement described under subsection (f) shall not apply to
this subsection.
``(6) Definitions.--In this subsection:
``(A) Comment.--The term `comment' means a submission under
section 553(c) of title 5, United States Code.
``(B) Computer-generated comment.--The term `computer-
generated comment' means a comment the substance of which is
primarily generated by computer software, including through
the use of artificial intelligence, rather than by a human
being.
``(C) Mass comment.--The term `mass comment' means a
comment submitted as part of an organized submission of a
large volume of identical, or substantively identical,
comments submitted by different signatories or entities.''.
(b) Update to Websites, Information Systems of Agencies.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 18 months after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the head of each agency subject to
the requirements of section 206(e) of the E-Government Act,
as added by subsection (a), shall update any website of the
agency, and any information system of the agency, as
necessary to ensure compliance with the requirements of such
section.
(2) Regulations.gov.--The Administrator of General
Services, acting through the eRulemaking Program Management
Office, shall update Regulations.gov as necessary to ensure
compliance with the requirements of section 206(e) of the E-
Government Act, as added by subsection (a).
(3) Erulemaking system.--The Administrator of General
Services shall update the shared eRulemaking system on behalf
of participating agencies.
(c) GAO Report on Computer-generated Comments.--
(1) Report.--Not later than 2 years after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United
States shall submit to the Committee on Oversight and
Accountability of the House of Representatives and the
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of
the Senate a report on the identification of computer-
generated comments under section 206(e) of the E-Government
Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-347; 44 U.S.C. 3501 note), that
includes the following:
(A) Recommendations on how to identify if a submission
under that section is a computer-generated comment.
(B) Any effect that computer-generated comments have on the
rulemaking process.
(C) The extent to which the public uses computer-generated
comments to participate in the rulemaking process at the time
the report is submitted.
(D) How prevalent computer-generated comments are at the
time the report is submitted.
(E) How prevalent the Comptroller General anticipates
computer-generated comments will be 5 years after the date on
which the report is submitted.
(d) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this Act, or the
amendments made by this Act, may be construed as affecting
the consideration of a mass comment by the head of an agency
during the rulemaking process.
(e) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Comment.--The term ``comment'' means a submission under
section 553(c) of title 5, United States Code.
(2) Computer-generated comments.--The term ``computer-
generated comment'' means a comment the substance of which is
primarily generated by computer software, including through
the use of artificial intelligence, rather than by a human
being.
(3) Director.--The term ``Director'' means the Director of
the Office of Management and Budget.
(4) Mass comment.--The term ``mass comment'' means a
comment submitted as part of an organized submission of a
large volume of identical, or substantively identical,
comments submitted by different signatories or entities.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Kansas (Mr. LaTurner) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin) each
will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kansas.
General Leave
Mr. LaTURNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks
and include extraneous material on this measure.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Kansas?
There was no objection.
Mr. LaTURNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Every American deserves the opportunity to participate in our
political system, which includes sharing their views on agency
rulemaking.
Agencies are required to provide an opportunity to participate in
rulemaking by submitting written views or data on draft rules.
Recent advances have expanded the ability for the public to comment
on proposed rules electronically. However, agencies may struggle to
manage computer-generated or mass comments.
H.R. 7528, the Comment Integrity and Management Act, provides
additional support to agencies navigating these new challenges by
allowing them the flexibility necessary to manage electronic comments.
The bill requires agencies to verify that any comment submitted
electronically has been submitted by an actual human. The bill also
provides agencies with additional authorities to assist in processing
and analyzing mass comments submitted electronically.
It requires agencies to identify, to the extent practicable, if the
comment is a mass comment and indicate this identification on any
publicly available copy of the comment.
This bill also requires agencies to establish and make public any
policies
[[Page H2846]]
they have regarding how they will handle computer-generated and mass
comments in the rulemaking process.
Further, this legislation requires the Office of Management and
Budget to issue implementing guidance to agencies and requires the
Government Accountability Office to submit a report to Congress.
It is time that our Federal agencies adapt their processes to
accommodate the latest technologies.
I thank Representative Clay Higgins for his idea and work in
developing this forward-thinking legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise in support of the Comment Integrity and Management Act again,
as I was saying. I was very eager to support my friend Mr. Higgins'
legislation here.
The basic issue is that it has gotten easier for people to post
comments online in a rulemaking. That is a really good thing because it
means that the process of implementing regulations is more accessible,
more transparent, more open, and more participatory, but a number of
the agencies have found, I think, what Members of Congress have found.
Sometimes you get the same paragraph 100 times, 1,000 times, or 3,000
times.
This bill would simply allow agencies to post a representative sample
of mass comments like this. If they choose to do that, they still are
required to post the number of such comments received so that the
volume of public sentiment is still fairly and effectively registered.
The bill would also require agencies, within 1 year, to establish
policies for handling computer-generated comments, which is a growing
concern to manage with the recent remarkable advances in artificial
intelligence.
I am eager to hear from Mr. Higgins because I view his legislation as
one that supports the administrative rulemaking process, which is so
much under attack these days. There are people who say that we
shouldn't have rules and regulations. Of course, the way our system
works is that, in Congress, we pass laws like the Clean Air Act and the
Clean Water Act, but we don't get into all the fine details. That is
left to the executive branch to do a rulemaking. That, too, is an open
process where people can register their concerns and send comments in.
We want to make sure that that process continues to operate
effectively and is not overwhelmed and overburdened by AI and computer-
duplicated comments.
{time} 1630
So I thank Mr. Higgins, and I thank Chairman Comer and his staff for
working with our side to address some of the concerns we had with the
original language.
I understand the administration and some outside groups have also
registered some concerns about the legislation that have been
addressed. We have worked with them and our majority counterparts to
incorporate their feedback into this revised version of the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support the bill at this time, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LaTURNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. Higgins).
Mr. HIGGINS of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
Kansas for yielding. I appreciate the commentary of my friend and
colleague, the ranking member of the Oversight and Accountability
Committee, Representative Raskin.
It may interest you to know, Mr. Speaker, that Representative Raskin
and I have worked in the spirit of mutual respect and camaraderie for 8
years now. We have enjoyed many vigorous debates in this body, and I
find it encouraging that he has risen enthusiastically now twice in
support of my bill.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 7528, the Comment Integrity
and Management Act. This bill is essential in the digital age where our
constituents engage with us more and more through electronic means. It
seeks to safeguard citizens' First Amendment right to participate in
the Federal rulemaking process.
This participation includes the invaluable process of submitting
public comments on proposed Federal rules and regulations, comments
that help shape the very fabric of our government.
With the advent of digital technology and the rise of artificial
intelligence being of increasing import, the channels for such
participation have expanded providing broader access but also
introducing new challenges. These challenges include computer-generated
comments which can obscure genuine public input and hinder our
agencies' ability to gauge public sentiment effectively.
The cornerstone of this bill is its commitment to ensuring that every
comment submitted by electronic means comes from a real person, not an
automated program. By requiring human verification, we are taking a
significant step towards preserving the authenticity of public input.
Furthermore, the Comment Integrity and Management Act equips our
agencies with the flexibility and tools necessary to efficiently manage
the comments they receive. This includes the authority to identify and
process computer-generated and mass comments, ensuring that they are
handled transparently and effectively.
Additionally, the legislation directs the Office of Management and
Budget to issue guidance on best practices for managing electronic
comments and mandates a report for the United States Government
Accountability Office on the prevalence and impact of computer-
generated comments.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to recognize the importance of
adapting our processes to the realities of the 21st century. It is
imperative that we ensure every American is heard and that genuine
public input is not drowned out by the noise of automation.
This bill represents a good government approach to embracing
technological advancements while safeguarding the principles of public
participation and transparency in the rulemaking process.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to salute the distinguished
gentleman from Louisiana for making the administrative rulemaking
process up-to-date, rapid, transparent, and effective for all of us so
we can keep it going.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to support this bill, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
Mr. LaTURNER. In closing, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 7528 helps ensure every
American is heard and not drowned out by an influx of computer-
generated comments.
Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to support this necessary
legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Kansas (Mr. LaTurner) that the House suspend the rules
and pass the bill, H.R. 7528, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the
rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________