[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.

                          ____________________