HR-9643-119
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 24 - 19.
Sponsored by Clay Higgins (R-LA)
What it does
This bill would amend the E-Government Act of 2002 to require federal agencies to verify, to the extent possible, whether electronically submitted public comments in the regulatory process were submitted by a human being, and to identify and label "mass comments" (large volumes of identical or near-identical submissions). Agencies could post a single representative sample of a mass comment instead of every copy, as long as they label how many identical submissions exist. It also directs OMB to issue implementation guidance, requires agencies to update websites and comment systems, and requires a GAO report within two years on computer-generated comments in rulemaking.
Who benefits
Federal agencies managing public comment dockets, who would gain tools to reduce staff time reviewing duplicate submissions; the public and researchers seeking clearer, more organized comment records; and organizations running legitimate grassroots advocacy campaigns, whose comments would still count but be labeled as batches. OMB and GSA gain implementation and oversight roles.
Who is hurt
Advocacy groups and coalitions that rely on mass-comment campaigns may see individual member submissions consolidated into a single labeled sample rather than posted separately, potentially reducing the visible weight of their campaign. Agencies would bear compliance costs for new verification technology, website updates, and policy development. Individuals whose comments get flagged (potentially incorrectly) as computer-generated or non-human could have their input treated differently without a clear appeal process specified in the bill.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that agencies are increasingly flooded with bot-generated or AI-generated mass comments that can distort the appearance of public opinion and overwhelm staff capacity, and that labeling and sampling such comments preserves transparency while making dockets more manageable. They contend the bill explicitly preserves consideration of mass comments and merely improves how agencies organize and verify submissions, addressing a documented problem highlighted by past incidents of fraudulent or bot-driven comment campaigns, such as those flagged in FCC net neutrality proceedings.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that labeling and sampling mass comments could reduce the practical visibility and perceived weight of legitimate grassroots campaigns, even though the bill states it does not affect their consideration in law. They contend that verification of "human" authorship is technically difficult and could misclassify legitimate comments, and that vesting OMB with broad guidance-writing authority over comment management gives the executive branch discretion to shape public participation rules without direct congressional check.
Constitutional context
Congress has authority under the Necessary and Proper Clause to structure how agencies conduct notice-and-comment rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act, and this bill operates within that framework rather than raising a separation-of-powers dispute; no landmark case directly governs comment-management procedures, though general APA rulemaking principles apply.
Checks and balances
Congress directs how agencies (executive branch) manage public comments and delegates guidance-writing to OMB, while GAO (a legislative branch agency) is tasked with reporting back to Congress on implementation, providing an oversight check.
Historical precedent
Concerns about fraudulent or bot-generated mass comments were prominently raised during the FCC's 2017 net neutrality rulemaking, though no prior federal statute has directly mandated agency-wide verification and labeling procedures for such comments.