H.R. 9125

[Congressional Bills 119th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 9125 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

119th CONGRESS
2d Session
H. R. 9125

To authorize the head of agencies to issue rules related to the uses of 
algorithmic decision-making systems that are likely to materially 
contribute to violations of Federal laws that the agency is authorized 
to enforce, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

June 3, 2026

Ms. Jacobs introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on 
Oversight and Government Reform, for a period to be subsequently 
determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such 
provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

A BILL

To authorize the head of agencies to issue rules related to the uses of 
algorithmic decision-making systems that are likely to materially 
contribute to violations of Federal laws that the agency is authorized 
to enforce, and for other purposes.

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 ``Sectoral AI Governance Act of 
2026''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress finds the following:
(1) Existing Federal laws may already prohibit certain 
harmful uses of algorithmic decision-making systems. However, 
uncertainty regarding the scope and application of existing 
authorities to such systems, and variation in agency procedures 
and approaches may impede clear and coordinated regulation.
(2) Agencies may benefit from clearer authority, consistent 
with their existing enforcement mandates, to issue prospective 
rules governing uses of algorithmic decision-making systems 
that are likely to materially contribute to violations of 
Federal law.
(3) A coordinated framework for consultation, guidance, and 
reporting may improve transparency, consistency, coordination, 
and accountability across agencies.

SEC. 3. RULEMAKING AUTHORITY RELATED TO THE USE OF ALGORITHMIC 
DECISION-MAKING SYSTEMS.

(a) Authority.--
(1) In general.--The head of each agency that is authorized 
to enforce a Federal law is authorized to make rules (in 
accordance with section 553 of title 5, United States Code, 
notwithstanding any rulemaking procedures that are otherwise 
applicable to the agency) to regulate the use of algorithmic 
decision-making systems--
(A) if the head of the agency determines, based on 
evidence that is available to the agency, that the use 
of such a system is likely to materially contribute to 
violations of the Federal law; and
(B) for the purpose of mitigating such violations.
(2) Enforcement.--A violation of a rule made under this 
subsection shall be treated as a violation of the Federal law 
described in paragraph (1) for purposes of administrative and 
civil enforcement of such law by the agency.
(3) Advanced notice of proposed rulemaking.--
(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph 
(B), not later than 60 days prior to issuing a notice 
of proposed rulemaking with respect to a rulemaking 
under this subsection, the head of an agency shall 
publish an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking to 
solicit public comment on whether the use of the 
algorithmic decision-making system that the agency 
proposes to regulate is likely to materially contribute 
to violations of the Federal law that the agency is 
authorized to enforce. An advanced notice of proposed 
rulemaking issued under this subparagraph shall, as 
appropriate, describe--
(i) the algorithmic decision-making system 
or category of systems at issue;
(ii) the provisions of Federal law 
implicated; and
(iii) the types of information, evidence, 
and public comment sought by the agency.
(B) Exception.--The requirement under subparagraph 
(A) shall not apply if the head of the agency 
determines that--
(i) the record of a rulemaking initiated 
prior to the date of enactment of this Act; or
(ii) a prior advanced notice of proposed 
rulemaking issued pursuant to this Act,
is sufficient to support a notice of proposed 
rulemaking under section 553 of title 5, United States 
Code, with respect to the rulemaking under this 
section.
(b) Consultation and Coordination During Rulemaking.--
(1) Preliminary consultation.--
(A) In general.--Prior to issuing a notice of 
proposed rulemaking with respect to a rulemaking under 
this subsection, the head of an agency shall, as 
appropriate, consult with the Administrator of the 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs on any 
reasonably foreseeable overlap, inconsistency, or 
conflict of the proposed rule with any other rule or 
proposed rule of another agency to regulate an 
algorithmic decision-making system under this section.
(B) Summary.--If the head of the agency proceeds 
with a rulemaking under this section, the head of the 
agency shall include a summary of the consultation 
under this paragraph in the notice of proposed 
rulemaking.
(2) Technical consultation.--The head of an agency that is 
making a rule under subsection (a) shall--
(A) consult, as appropriate, with the Office of 
Science and Technology Policy and the National 
Institute of Standards and Technology on the technical 
characteristics, evaluation, and governance of an 
algorithmic decision-making system that the agency 
seeks to regulate in its rule; and
(B) include in the rulemaking record a summary of 
any consultation conducted under this paragraph.
(3) Coordination.--The head of each agency shall, to the 
extent practicable, coordinate with the heads of other agencies 
to ensure that rules made under subsection (a) do not impose 
conflicting requirements regarding the use of algorithmic 
decision-making systems.
(c) Mitigation of Disruption of Benefits.--The head of an agency 
that is making a rule under subsection (a) shall, in making such rule, 
consider whether the use of the algorithmic decision-making system 
occurs in connection with the administration of a Government service or 
public benefit, including by a contractor or service provider, and, 
where practicable, shall seek to mitigate unnecessary adverse effects 
of the rule on the delivery, accessibility, timeliness, integrity, or 
continuity of such service or benefit.
(d) Guidance.--The Director of the Office of Management and Budget, 
acting through the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs and in 
consultation with the Director of the Office of Science and Technology 
Policy, shall issue guidance to resolve conflicts and ensure 
consistency across agencies regarding the rulemaking authority under 
subsection (a).
(e) Periodic Review.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 3 years after promulgating 
a rule under subsection (a), and thereafter at intervals 
determined appropriate by the head of the agency (but not less 
frequently than once every 5 years), the head of an agency 
shall review the rule to assess whether, due to technological 
developments or changes in the use of algorithmic decision-
making systems, maintaining the rule is appropriate and that 
the rule is appropriately tailored to mitigate violations of 
the Federal law the agency is authorized to enforce.
(2) Repeal and amendment of rules.--The head of the agency 
shall repeal or amend any rule that is determined to be 
inappropriate to maintain or not appropriately tailored to 
mitigate violations of the Federal law the agency is authorized 
to enforce.
(f) Biennial Report.--
(1) Agencies that engaged in rulemaking.--Not later than 2 
years after the date of enactment of this Act, and every 2 
years thereafter, the head of each agency that has engaged in a 
rulemaking pursuant to the authority under subsection (a) 
during the 2-year period preceding the submission of the report 
shall submit to Congress, the Director of the Office of 
Management and Budget, and the Director of the Office of 
Science and Technology Policy, and make publicly available, a 
report on such rulemaking, including--
(A) a description of the rulemaking;
(B) the use of an algorithmic decision-making 
system the agency determined was likely to materially 
contribute to violations of the Federal law that the 
agency was authorized to enforce that the agency sought 
to mitigate through the rulemaking;
(C) hiring and staffing actions undertaken by the 
agency to support the rulemaking;
(D) challenges encountered by the agency related to 
such rulemaking;
(E) additional personnel and resources needed to 
support the use of the rulemaking authority under 
subsection (a);
(F) a summary of enforcement actions taken by 
agencies pursuant to a rule made using the authority 
under subsection (a), including--
(i) the general categories of violations 
for which enforcement actions were taken; and
(ii) the types and aggregate ranges of 
penalties or remedies assessed;
(G) how the rule will regulate an algorithmic 
decision-making system to prevent violations of the 
Federal law that the agency is authorized to enforce;
(H) a summary of comments, evidence, or technical 
assessments received regarding potential disparate 
impacts or other discriminatory effects associated with 
the use of the algorithmic decision-making system, and 
how the agency considered such information in 
connection with the Federal law the agency is 
authorized to enforce;
(I) in the case of a rule that was repealed or 
amended pursuant to subsection (e), a summary of the 
review conducted under such subsection; and
(J) a summary of any overlap, inconsistency, or 
conflict with any other rule or proposed rule of 
another agency identified during consultation or 
coordination under subsection (b), and how such 
overlap, inconsistency, or conflict was addressed or 
resolved.
(2) Certain agencies that have not engaged in rulemaking.--
(A) In general.--Not later than 2 years after the 
date of enactment of this Act, and every 2 years 
thereafter, the head of each agency described in 
subparagraph (B) shall submit to Congress, the Director 
of the Office of Management and Budget, and the 
Director of the Office of Science and Technology 
Policy, and make publicly available, a report on--
(i) the uses of an algorithmic decision-
making system that the agency identified are 
likely to materially contribute to violations 
of the Federal laws that the agency is 
authorized to enforce; and
(ii) the factors the agency considered and 
information on which the agency relied in 
making the determination not to engage in a 
rulemaking pursuant to the authority under 
subsection (a), including any other available 
mechanisms used by the agency to mitigate the 
violations of the Federal laws that the agency 
is authorized to enforce, and a summary of any 
technical assessment relied upon by the agency 
in making such determination.
(B) Agency described.--An agency is described in 
this subparagraph if the agency--
(i) determined, during the 2-year period 
preceding the submission of the report, that 
the use of an algorithmic decision-making 
system is likely to materially contribute to 
violations of a Federal law that the agency is 
authorized to enforce; and
(ii) did not engage in a rulemaking 
pursuant to the authority under subsection (a).
(g) Definitions.--In this Act:
(1) Algorithmic decision-making system.--The term 
``algorithmic decision-making system'' means a computational 
process integrated into software or hardware, including a 
process based on statistics, machine learning, artificial 
intelligence, or any other data processing technique, that--
(A) is used--
(i) to make or execute a decision; or
(ii) to assist in making or executing a 
decision, if such process is capable of 
altering the outcome of the decision; and
(B) is not passive computing infrastructure.
(2) Authority to enforce.--The term ``authority to 
enforce'' means, with respect to an agency--
(A) authority to issue sanctions (as defined in 
section 551 of title 5, United States Code) in response 
to a violation of Federal law or regulation; or
(B) the legal authority to bring an action in 
Federal court to seek a penalty or injunction to remedy 
a violation of Federal law or regulation.
(3) Agency.--The term ``agency'' has the meaning given such 
term in section 551 of title 5, United States Code.
(4) Materially contribute.--The term ``materially 
contribute'' means, with respect to a violation of Federal law, 
to play a significant role in bringing about or enabling such 
violation, including by assisting or facilitating conduct that 
results in the violation, but not including minimal or 
incidental support that is unrelated to the violation.
(5) Artificial intelligence.--The term ``artificial 
intelligence'' has the meaning given such term in section 5002 
of the National Artificial Intelligence Initiative Act of 2020 
(15 U.S.C. 9401).
(6) Passive computing infrastructure.--The term ``passive 
computing infrastructure'' means any intermediary technology 
that does not influence or determine the outcome of a decision, 
make or aid in a decision (including through evaluations, 
metrics, or scoring), inform policy implementation, or collect 
data or observations, including web hosting, domain 
registration, networking, caching, data storage, or 
cybersecurity.
(h) Non-Preemption.--Nothing in this Act shall be construed to 
preempt or limit the authority of a State to regulate the use of an 
algorithmic decision-making system, except to the extent that the 
regulation of such system by a State is in conflict with this Act or a 
rule issued under this Act.
<all>