If enacted, HB 4113 would provide a clear mandate for federal agencies regarding the handling of public comments, thereby reinforcing the principle of free speech in governmental discourse. The bill could lead to increased public trust in government operations as citizens see that their comments remain intact and available for public viewing. It emphasizes the right to information and open dialogue between the government and its constituents, making it more difficult for agencies to manage narratives surrounding public feedback.
Summary
House Bill 4113, titled the 'No Altering Public Comments Act', aims to enhance transparency and accountability within governmental agencies by prohibiting them from removing or altering public comments posted on their websites, except in circumstances related to national security. This legislation is positioned as a protective measure for citizen engagement, allowing individuals to voice their opinions and feedback on government actions without the fear of censorship or alteration.
Contention
The bill has the potential to spark debate regarding the balance between protecting free speech and ensuring national security. Critics may argue that allowing unrestricted public comments could pose risks if harmful or threatening content is not adequately moderated. Conversely, supporters of the bill assert that the existing mechanisms for national security already provide sufficient barriers against inappropriate content, thus rendering the bill necessary to safeguard public discourse. The discussion around this bill highlights the ongoing tension between governmental authority and individual rights in democratic engagement.
ACE Act End Zuckerbucks Act of 2023 Solving an Overlooked Loophole in Votes for Executives (SOLVE) Act Promoting Free and Fair Elections Act Don't Weaponize the IRS Act American Confidence in Elections Act
Regulatory Accountability Act This bill expands and provides statutory authority for notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures to require federal agencies to consider (1) whether a rulemaking is required by statute or is within the discretion of the agency, (2) whether existing laws or rules could be amended or rescinded to address the problem, and (3) reasonable alternatives to a new rule. For proposed major or high-impact rules that have a specified significant economic impact or adverse effect on the public health or safety, an agency must publish notice of such rulemaking to invite interested parties to propose alternatives and ideas to accomplish the agency's objectives; allow persons interested in high-impact or certain major rules to petition for a public hearing with oral presentation, cross-examination, and the burden of proof on the proponent of the rule; adopt the rule that maximizes net benefits within the scope of the statutory provision authorizing the rule, unless the agency explains the costs and benefits that justify adopting an alternative rule and such rule is approved by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA); and publish a framework and metrics for measuring the ongoing effectiveness of the rule. Agencies must notify OIRA with certain information about a proposed rulemaking, including specified discussion and preliminary explanations concerning a major or high-impact rule. Further, OIRA must establish certain rulemaking guidelines. Additionally, the bill (1) revises the scope of judicial review of agency actions, and (2) establishes requirements for agencies issuing guidance.