PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Congressional Research Service
Version 53 · Passed House · Dec 9, 2019
Identifying Outputs of Generative Adversarial Networks Act or the IOGAN Act
(Sec. 3) This bill directs the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to support research on manipulated or synthesized media, including the output of generative adversarial networks. A generative adversarial network is a software system designed to be trained with authentic inputs (e.g., photographs) to generate similar, but artificial, outputs (e.g., deepfakes).
Specifically, the NSF must support research on manipulated or synthesized content and information authenticity.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
(Sec. 4) NIST must support research for the development of measurements and standards necessary to accelerate the development of the technological tools to examine the function and outputs of generative adversarial networks or other technologies that synthesize or manipulate content.
NIST shall conduct outreach to (1) receive input from private, public, and academic stakeholders on fundamental measurements and standards research necessary to examine the function and outputs of generative adversarial networks; and (2) consider the feasibility of an ongoing public and private sector engagement to develop voluntary standards for the function and outputs of such networks or other technologies that synthesize or manipulate content.
(Sec. 5) The NSF and NIST must jointly submit to Congress a report containing (1) such agencies' findings with respect to the feasibility for research opportunities with the private sector, including digital media companies to detect the function and outputs of generative adversarial networks or other technologies that synthesize or manipulate content; and (2) any policy recommendations of those agencies that could facilitate and improve communication and coordination between the private sector, the NSF, and relevant federal agencies through the implementation of innovative approaches to detect digital content produced by such networks or such technologies.
People & committees
Rep. Gonzalez, Anthony [R-OH-16] · R–OH
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H9363-9364)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H9363-9364)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 4355.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H9363-9364)
Ms. Johnson (TX) moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 213.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. H. Rept. 116-268.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. H. Rept. 116-268.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Sep 8, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.4355 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.4355 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.4355 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.4355 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.